[Mr Speaker in the                 Chair]

Therese Coffey: I beg to move, That the House sit in private.
	Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 163).
	Question negatived.

Wreck Removal Convention Bill

Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee,  considered .
	Third Reading
	Queen’s and Prince of Wales’s consent signified.

Therese Coffey: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	After that comedy of errors, it is appropriate that it is red nose day today. I will open with a quick question. What do you find lying on a seabed shivering? The answer is a nervous wreck. Perhaps I am a bit of a nervous wreck because I finally get to speak to the Bill that stands in my name.
	I am delighted to have the opportunity to introduce this Bill. In my constituency, which contains the premier port of Felixstowe, large ships, including many cargo tankers, as well as container ships, are a feature on the horizon looking out across the North sea. However, they also bring to mind the risk of the greatest possible casualty for any marine vessel and any mariner—a shipwreck. Although the seas can be a dangerous place, we are justly proud of our record in this country in preventing accidents and dealing with those that do occur.
	However, complacency is no place to be, and we have an opportunity through this Bill to implement the International Maritime Organisation’s international convention on the removal of wrecks. The underlying principle of that convention is that the liability for removing wrecks is placed firmly with the shipowner rather than the British taxpayer. The wreck removal convention is a new international instrument negotiated by the previous Government, and primary legislation is required to implement it. I commend this to my hon. Friends because it is not a European competence; the powers of this House are required to initiate this important law.
	The Bill’s provisions will be enacted only if nine other nation states ratify the convention. One state has already done so, and eight have proceedings under way. I believe that the United Kingdom Parliament, by enacting this in due course, will lead as an example to other nation states in encouraging them to get on with it and put this important convention in place.

William Cash: I congratulate my hon. Friend on having found a piece of legislation that is not a European competence.

Therese Coffey: I thank my hon. Friend for that. One can imagine that I picked my Bill carefully so that it was not a money Bill and required our primary competence.

Peter Bottomley: Is it not correct that if my hon. Friend were to take all the possible provisions that she could have promoted in the House on a random basis, there would be a seven out of eight chance that she would pick something that was not a European competence?

Therese Coffey: That may well be true, but when I came to choose my Bill I wanted something that was relevant to the people of my constituency and to the United Kingdom, and I am proud to have done so.
	Why does this Bill matter? A wreck can cause a number of problems. It may constitute a hazard to navigation, potentially endangering other vessels and their crews. It may block a port, which would be highly damaging to our country’s trade, as well as to offshore infrastructure such as oil rigs, buoys, wind farms and similar. It may cause substantial damage to the marine and coastal environments, both of which are precious. It can also be exceptionally expensive to deal with. Currently, there is no requirement for a shipowner to remove a wreck or pay for its removal, except in specific cases of pollution, where the Secretary of State can already act. Even then, however, the cost of recovery is not guaranteed. The UK has no powers to act on UK and non-UK ships outside its territorial seas, except in circumstances of pollution within the UK’s pollution zone.
	Let me offer in support of the Bill two examples of recent incidents. In 2007, MSC Napoli, a UK-registered container ship, suffered flooding in her engine room during severe weather conditions. Due to the risk of pollution, SOSREP—Secretary of State’s Representative—an agency of the UK Government, in conjunction with the French authorities, used its emergency powers to intervene. To date, the Government’s costs in dealing with this wreck are approximately £2.8 million, which they do not expect to be able to recover in full. If this convention had been in place, we could have done so.
	A second example, which is a bit closer to home for me, is that of the Lagik, a non-UK registered ship that was grounded on the River Nene in 2000. A combination of the weight of the ship and the cargo of steel broke the ship’s back as the tide ebbed. It was declared a total constructive loss. That incident closed the port of Wisbech for 44 days. I dread to think what would happen if the port of Felixstowe was closed for a similar length of time. The Lagik was abandoned by her owners, so the task fell to the Government and their agencies at a cost of about £1.25 million. Despite attempts to recover the costs through legal action, not a single penny has been recovered. Again, that would not have been the case if the convention had been in place.

David Nuttall: I congratulate my hon. Friend on introducing the Bill. It clearly has the potential to save the taxpayer a great deal of money. Does it extend as far as covering the costs of consequential
	damage caused by a shipwreck, such as that caused by the escape of its cargo, which could be oil and would thereby have a tremendous, adverse environmental impact?

Therese Coffey: I understand that consequential costs could also be recovered. There are already powers to deal with pollution, including oil spills.
	The purpose of the convention and of the Bill is to lay primary responsibility for the removal of the wreck and subsequent clearing costs with the shipowner, while providing powers to the Secretary of State to act if the shipowner does not do so expeditiously.
	The Bill requires ships of 300 gross tonnage and above to maintain insurance for this liability, which will be enforced through a wreck removal insurance certification scheme. I assure hon. Members that as soon as 10 nation states implement the convention, that will effectively become a worldwide requirement, so it will not deter boats from coming to UK ports. Importantly, the UK authorities will be given the power to take action to recover costs directly from insurers.
	It is a great privilege to take a Bill through this House and I am happy to be doing so in my first Session. I hope that it will progress well in the Lords, and indeed in this place. My predecessor, Lord Deben, was never fortunate enough to be called in the ballot, so this is one small achievement that I now have as the Member for Suffolk Coastal. This is an important Bill and I commend it to the House.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I congratulate the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) on bringing the Bill successfully to this stage. She said in her maiden speech, which I read yesterday, that you, Mr Speaker, had given her training in public speaking some years ago. Clearly it has paid off, because she did not come across as the nervous wreck that she joked about. She outlined clearly why the measure is important not only to her constituents, but to the UK. She also said in her maiden speech that she was often told on the doorstep that she had big shoes to fill in taking the place of Mr John Gummer, who had a distinguished career in government and in Parliament. In bringing this Bill forward, she has made a very good start in filling those shoes. There are not many Members who, in their first year of service in this place, have the chance to introduce a Bill, let alone to pilot one through successfully, if hon. Members will forgive the shipping pun. She has achieved that, so I commend her and pay tribute to her ability, tenacity and success in getting to this point.
	I will be brief because, as the hon. Lady said, we supported this measure when we were in government. In Committee, the Minister said:
	“In line with the ‘polluter pays’ principle, the owner of a ship creating a problem should bear the costs.”––[Official Report, Wreck Removal Convention Public Bill Committee, 7 February 2011; c. 4.]
	The hon. Lady has reiterated that and we support that position. The adoption of the international convention by the International Maritime Organisation indicates the support of the shipping community worldwide. We are rightly proud to have the IMO’s headquarters in London. Efthimios Mitropoulos, the secretary-general
	of the IMO, leads that organisation with great dignity and vision. He is a good friend to the UK, and is a good friend to the shipping Minister. He certainly was in my period in that office. My only query about the Bill is where we go from here. That was outlined by the hon. Lady, and I am sure that the Minister will say what timetable he anticipates for this measure being ratified and coming into international law.
	The hon. Lady has done a service to the House and the country, and I congratulate her on bringing this Bill forward. We support Third Reading.

Michael Penning: It is a pleasure to be here today. I did not get elocution lessons or speaking notes from you many years ago, Mr Speaker. Perhaps I would have done as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) did a few moments ago if I had. We did, however, share many platforms together many years ago.
	I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on steering the Bill through so quickly. It has shocked some colleagues just how quickly it has progressed. It has done so because it has cross-party and international support. It is a very important measure. The International Maritime Organisation will be watching us closely—it is based only a short distance across the river. I hope that other maritime nations will also be watching, and will implement their part of the measure as soon as possible. It is imperative that we get the support of the 10 nations as soon as possible, so that the convention can be ratified.
	This great seafaring nation has more than 10,500 miles of coastline, which we need to protect. Our coastline has many areas of outstanding natural beauty, as I have seen many times. Some of those are in my hon. Friend’s constituency, which I know very well, and in the last few days I have been in the Western Isles and on Shetland, which have amazing beauty. We must ensure that we protect that beautiful coastline.
	The Bill has the full support of the Government and the Opposition. I hope that it has a quick and safe passage through the Lords, to use another seafaring term. The key, as the shadow Minister said, is that we lead on this matter, and we intend to do so. I will speak to other seafaring nations in the next few days and urge them to push forward as fast as possible, as we have done. It is not for me to tell them how to do that in their Parliaments, but we must get to 10 nations as fast as possible to get ratification and implementation, because it is crucial that the polluter pays. We will do the work and clear up, but at the end of the day, the cheque will come from the polluter. This Bill will make sure of that.
	I hope that the Bill passes speedily through the other place and that the other states that need to ratify the convention do so. The IMO has done a wonderful job to pilot the convention through, and the hon. Lady has done a wonderful job to pilot the Bill through the House in her first term, and I congratulate her on doing so.

Peter Bottomley: I apologise for being in weekend clothes, Mr Speaker.
	I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) on her success with the Bill so far, and I welcome the words from both Front Benches. My seafaring experience is limited to seven weeks serving on a cargo ship coming back from Brisbane to Liverpool in 1963, so I do not claim that it is up to date. I was also the chairman of the parliamentary maritime group at one time.
	The IMO has done well on this matter, and the convention will help. I pay tribute to our lighthouse, harbour and conservation authorities for the work that they do. If anyone thinks that we do not mark our wrecks at the moment, they are wrong. However, the convention will place an obligation on us and on others.
	I think I will be permitted to say briefly that the biggest task of all is to prevent ships from becoming wrecks. There is the danger of collisions and other things going wrong because of the manning of vessels, especially at night in the busy channels. That often leads to wrecks—it is not only bad weather, but bad navigation. People who read the professional maritime press will understand the risks and dangers that have to be guarded against every hour of every day in every part of our waters.
	There is the slight consequential problem that when there is a wreck and there are removal costs, the insurance requirement will be imposed only on vessels that come into our harbours or go to one of our offshore installations. My reading of the convention and the rules is that vessels that are making a passage will not have to have the certificate. I hope that at some stage we will be able to place that requirement on people passing through restricted waters as well. However, I welcome the Bill and the convention.
	Question put and agreed  to .
	Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

United Kingdom Parliamentary Sovereignty Bill

Second  Reading

Christopher Chope: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	I am delighted to see in the Chamber distinguished colleagues who are members of the European Scrutiny Committee and others who have kindly agreed to support the Bill. My hon. Friends the Members for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) and for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) are two such Members.
	I am delighted that, pursuant to the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, at 11 o’clock the Prime Minister is going to come along and tell Parliament about the implications of the European Security Council resolution last night.

Peter Bottomley: UN, not European.

Christopher Chope: The UN—I thought I said that.

Peter Bottomley: No, you said “European”.

Christopher Chope: That just shows how they’ve got at me, doesn’t it? I am going to tell the House later about some of my discussions earlier in the week in, dare one say it, Brussels.
	The principle of parliamentary sovereignty means that the UK Parliament can enact any law whatsoever on any subject whatsoever, and can do so by ordinary legislation. That means that if the people want to change the law, their representatives elected to Parliament can do so. Likewise, if the people do not want the law to be changed, their parliamentary representatives can ensure that it is not. If the courts interpret laws that we have passed in a way that Parliament does not wish, it can change those laws.
	This is still a hot topic, despite the lengthy discussions about it in this place when we debated the European Union Bill. To give a flavour of it, I shall give examples of the regular correspondence that I get from constituents on it. I have a letter dated 10 March, an old-fashioned holograph from a lady from Christchurch. She says that she is fed up with the way in which the British people are being overridden by the EU and disappointed by what the Prime Minister said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) about a referendum. She thinks that the sooner we get the British people a say in the issue, the better.
	I have another letter, which came this Monday, which talks about the people’s pledge and the desire for the voters of the UK to decide once and for all whether we should remain in the EU or leave it. In a sense, the purpose of the Bill is to ensure that we do not have to go through that process, because we in this elected House would be able to decide what we wanted and what we did not want in relation to EU legislation.

William Cash: Under my hon. Friend’s splendid Bill, would we also be able to overturn the vote against reaffirming the sovereignty of the UK
	that the House took during the debates on the European Union Bill? Would it effectively put us back where we really belong?

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and indebted to him for the work that he has done on this subject. This is but the latest in a series of Bills, many of which he has drafted. Of course, he knows the answer to his question, which is that if the Bill were passed, it would have the effect that he has described. I think the House and the country would be a better place as a result.

Peter Bottomley: I may be anticipating a point that my hon. Friend will make later—he may just be clearing his throat and will turn to the contents of the Bill in a moment. May I take him to the last word of clause 1, which is “reaffirmed”? If the Bill is enacted with the words:
	“The sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament is hereby reaffirmed”,
	will that change the current situation or leave it as it is?

Christopher Chope: Arguably, it would leave it as it is. There was a debate on the European Union Bill about whether we needed to reaffirm our sovereignty. My concern, which I think was first expressed in the House by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood), is: “If you don’t use it, you lose it.” The monarch—the Queen—is sovereign, but because she has not exercised her sovereignty for a period of time and is exercising it less and less, there comes a stage when people say, “You have given it up.”
	The concern that I and a lot of other Members have is that if we do not keep reasserting our sovereignty, we might suddenly find that an external body or court interprets that as meaning that, by default, we have conceded that Parliament no longer has sovereignty in various aspects of our country’s affairs. That is why clause 1 is in the Bill. It may seem bizarre that we have to reassert that, but I believe that we need to do so because our Parliament is under continual assault from external organisations that are trying to interfere with our right to decide our own affairs.

William Cash: May I refer vicariously, through my hon. Friend, to the book written by Jeffrey Goldsworthy, which would give my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) an opportunity to catch up with the meaning that should be given to the words “parliamentary sovereignty”? It points out that the necessity to reaffirm that is becoming acute, for the reason that the European Scrutiny Committee’s report published the other day stated clearly. Certain judges in the Supreme Court are strongly suggesting that parliamentary sovereignty has been qualified, and that they hold ultimate authority. That is a recent and extremely dangerous move.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

Peter Bottomley: I do not want to detain my hon. Friend, but it was not the beginning of clause 1 that I was questioning; it was the word “reaffirmed”. I wonder whether the word “affirmed” or “exists” would have done.
	In 1948, or sometime about then, when NATO was created, we agreed to give our sovereignty on starting a war to people who were then at Fontainebleau and later moved to Brussels. I do not mean that as an argument against my hon. Friend, and I am not opposing what he is trying to do, I am just trying to clear up what clause 1 actually means and why its last word matters.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend asks why use the word “reaffirmed” rather than “exists”. I have chosen that particular word, but other words could be substituted for it. I am not saying that it is the only word that could be used in clause 1 to convey the meaning that I wish to get across. I think it is a good word, and unless and until somebody comes up with an amendment that they think is better, I would like to keep it in the Bill. If my hon. Friend would like to join me in considering the Bill in Committee in due course, I am sure he will have the chance to move amendments and speak to them to explain why he thinks his choice of words is better than the words in the Bill.
	May I take the House back briefly to the “Invitation to Join the Government of Britain”, which was the title given to the Conservative party manifesto at the last general election? On page 114, under the subtitle “Promote our national interest—an open and democratic Europe”, it is stated:
	“The steady and unaccountable intrusion of the European Union into almost every aspect of our lives has gone too far. A Conservative government will negotiate for three specific guarantees—on the Charter of Fundamental Rights, on criminal justice, and on social and employment legislation—with our European partners to return powers that we believe should reside with the UK, not the EU. We seek a mandate to negotiate the return of these powers from the EU to the UK.”

Peter Bone: I understand that the Ministry of Defence has had to pulp several books because it does not like them. Is it correct that Conservative central office has tried to pulp all the previous manifestos?

Christopher Chope: I do not know, but I think my hon. Friend is perhaps a bit harsh. I hope that all Conservatives in this Parliament, who were elected on that manifesto, are trying their hardest to ensure that its words are implemented. My hon. Friend is in the forefront of trying to achieve that objective.
	We were also promised in an informal meeting of the Conservative parliamentary party that there were red lines around our policy on Europe in the coalition agreement. We therefore believed that the words that I have just read out would not only remain part of the Conservative party manifesto but be inherent in the coalition manifesto.
	I do not want to go back over the European Union Bill because we had long discussions about it, but recent events have brought home to me the fact that the gradual erosion of our sovereignty remains a live issue. We had a debate on Wednesday evening, which is, in a sense, unfinished business, because the Division is deferred to next Wednesday, about the fact that the Government have decided to use section 6 of the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008 so that the Prime Minister can agree to amend article 136 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union next weekend to establish a permanent stability mechanism for the euro.
	The hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) made one of the most interesting interventions in that short debate when he asked:
	“Would it not be more appropriate for an intergovernmental agreement to be reached among the member states of the eurozone, rather than have some change to the treaty on the functioning of the European Union?”
	My right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe replied:
	“It would have been possible for the member states of the eurozone to have come to such an intergovernmental agreement, but they chose not to do so.”
	Surely if member states want to set up intergovernmental arrangements centred around the euro and the eurozone, they should be allowed to do so. There is no reason for the Government, controlled by Parliament, to be dragged into that process. It then became apparent that Parliament was being asked to give the Government authority to negotiate away some of our powers because it was thought sensible for us to be party to an unnecessary treaty amendment. If it is not necessary, why are we doing it? How is that consistent with what was said in our manifesto?
	Later in the debate, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe said:
	“Should there be any suggestion of amending the draft decision at the European Council—there is no such suggestion from any quarter at present—”.—[Official Report, 16 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 422-24.]
	However, as I said, I was in Brussels for three days at the beginning of this week and I picked up a copy of European Voice, a newspaper that circulates there. An article on page seven, under the headline “MEPs confident of getting say on bail-out mechanism”, states:
	“MEPs expressed optimism on…8 March that EU member states will accept their demands to link a permanent bail-out mechanism for the eurozone more closely to the EU institutions.”

Jim Fitzpatrick: I am curious about who publishes European Voice. Is it a paid periodical, something that the Commission publishes or something that circulates among MEPs?

Christopher Chope: It may be all those—I do not know. However, I suspect that the people who ultimately pay for it are the hon. Gentleman and I through our taxes. Interestingly, on the same page, without comment or criticism, a paragraph states:
	“MEPs vote to increase their own office allowances”
	to €225 a year. Since that news item is included without any adverse comment, I suspect that the publication is associated with the European Parliament.

David Nuttall: Is my hon. Friend completely accurate? Is it €225 a year or a second?

Christopher Chope: It is €225,000 a year. I got that in quickly because I feared that if I mentioned it too slowly, Mr Speaker, you might intervene and say it was not relevant to the debate.

Mr Speaker: Order. May I just say that the hon. Gentleman has been entirely relevant so far? He has nothing to fear.

Christopher Chope: Accolades from Mr Speaker are always welcome in my heart.
	The article continues:
	“The European Parliament’s constitutional affairs committee on Monday (7 March) gave its backing to a limited EU treaty change to incorporate the European Stability Mechanism into the EU treaty, only on condition that the new system is kept ‘as close as possible’ to the EU system, with the involvement of the European Commission and the Parliament.”
	Basically, we are in a position whereby our Government are telling Parliament that the stability mechanism is solely to do with eurozone members and asking for authorisation for a treaty change, but the European Parliament is saying that the consequence of that change is giving the European Commission and the European Parliament a say over something that our Government tell us has no relevance to the United Kingdom.

William Cash: I do not know whether it is any consolation to my hon. Friend, but under the arrangements, the European Parliament has a right only to be consulted in that respect. However, it is pressing hard and I doubt that he has missed the fact that it deliberately moved consideration of the question to the date—24 and 25 March—when the European Council meets to exert pressure on it. Its ambition to get control and to insist on the Community method knows no bounds.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend’s suspicions are well founded and backed by the facts that he gives the House. As we speak, moves are afoot on that issue.
	I wish to address the remainder of my remarks to another matter—the admission of the European Union into the European convention on human rights. Page 113 of the Conservative manifesto states:
	“We will never allow Britain to slide into a federal Europe.”
	Yet article 6 of the Lisbon treaty and article 59 of the European convention on human rights as amended by protocol 14 provide for the European Union to accede to the European convention on human rights. On that basis, the European Union would become a non-state contracting party to the convention. It is said that it would be entitled to have a European Union judge, joining the other 47 judges from the member states of the Council of Europe, to adjudicate on issues relating to interpretation of the convention.
	Clearly, that is not some innocuous move whereby the European Union submits to the European convention on human rights because it thinks that it is a good thing and desirable that European Union institutions should comply with the principles laid down in it. The European Union clearly has it in mind to put its toe in the door—or, perhaps more appropriately at this time of year, to be a cuckoo in the nest—and effectively drive out the convention and replace it with its own charter of fundamental rights, administered by the European Court of Justice.
	If one looks back, one sees that the first reference in European Union law to fundamental rights was in article 6(2) of the 1992 Maastricht treaty, which provides that the European Union
	“shall respect fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms…and as they result from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, as general principles of Community law.”
	Of course, no one would quarrel with that because it basically enunciated that there is no difference between the European Union law and approach to fundamental rights and the approach of the European convention on human rights. However, since then, the EU has developed its interpretation of those fundamental rights far in excess of what was originally thought reasonable.

David Nuttall: Is there not the danger that the EU will allow nationals of foreign states to vote in our general elections?

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend has a point—that is part of the European charter of fundamental rights. Thinking along those lines caused one of the witnesses to the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform last month to say that even if we won the day against the European convention on human rights on prisoner voting, we would find a case brought against us by the European Court of Justice—the EU would prosecute us through the ECJ for failing to comply with the fundamental freedoms it has laid down. In the same way, the bizarre ruling the other day will result in my 21-year-old daughter paying a much higher insurance premium for driving than the marketplace says she should pay. How absurd is that? That is another example of the way in which the EU uses its institutions to continue to interfere with what should be our domestic law.

William Cash: Both the charter of fundamental rights and the European convention on human rights, in their differing judicial aspects—the ECJ and the European Court of Human Rights—impinge on UK sovereignty. Is my hon. Friend aware that the Lord Chancellor himself took part in a European Committee two or three days ago? He and I had an interesting altercation on his assertion that the incorporation of the charter of fundamental rights does not change anything very much. However, for all the reasons that my hon. Friend is giving, to which I referred in that debate, the incorporation makes a substantial difference because it concentrates a mass of precedence from the European Court of Human Rights in the charter, and is thereby adjudicated by the ECJ.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful, as always, to my hon. Friend—he is absolutely right.

Tom Brake: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is possible for a 21-year-old woman to have an appalling driving record and for a 21-year-old man to have an exemplary driving record, and therefore that their insurance premiums should be based on their driving habits?

Christopher Chope: My view is that such issues should be sorted out in the marketplace by the people who provide driving insurance. If an insurance company takes that line—I am sure that some do—why can it not be given the freedom to do what it wants in the marketplace? It is absolutely outrageous that a foreign court and not even a British one should try to dictate to us how our insurance industry, which I think is the best globally, should respond to particular risks.
	I note that the hon. Gentleman thinks that that is a good thing, which is in tune with the big advertisement from the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats in Europe that appears on the back page of the newspaper to which I referred. The advert says how important it is for more power to be taken away from parliamentarians and given to the European Commission and states:
	“Europe needs a community not a pact”.
	It goes on about how important it is for member states to
	“act in unison under the leadership and direction of the European Commission”,
	that there is every evidence that an intergovernmental approach does not work and that the community method is much better. I give full marks to the hon. Gentleman; he is fully in tune with the thinking of European Union Liberal Democrats, but I must tell him that I am fully opposed to all that.

Tom Brake: May I reassure the hon. Gentleman that Andrew Duff and I differ on certain European matters?

Christopher Chope: Perhaps we will explore those points of difference, but I note what the hon. Gentleman says.

Peter Bottomley: Having listened to the exchange between you, Mr Speaker, and my hon. Friend, I think it would be in order for him to refer again to a proposal in his Bill. Clause 3, “Judicial notice”—a heading that might be explained—mentions “any rule of international law” in subsection (b). The first debate this morning was a debate on the Wreck Removal Convention Bill. If enacted, that will bring a convention—a piece of international law—into domestic law. How do we avoid a referendum on that under the terms of the United Kingdom Parliamentary Sovereignty Bill?

Christopher Chope: Under this Bill, we would not need to have a referendum on the international convention on wrecks any more than we would on any other convention. Clause 2 says that referendums will apply to the implementation of legal instruments that increase the function of the European Union affecting the United Kingdom.

Peter Bottomley: That is the assertion that I am sure is in my hon. Friend’s mind, and not one with which I would necessarily disagree, but the Bill does not say that. It reaffirms
	“the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament; and for connected purposes”.
	Clause 1, which we have discussed, states:
	“The sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament is hereby reaffirmed”
	for one reason or another. However, clause 2 states:
	“No Minister…shall make or implement any legal instrument which…is inconsistent with this Act”—
	alternatively, not additionally—
	“without requiring it to be approved in a referendum of the electorate in the United Kingdom.”
	It was clearly explained earlier—I think my hon. Friend was in the Chamber—that if the Wreck Removal Convention Bill becomes an Act and the convention becomes international law, ratifying the convention will make international law apply to us without our Parliament
	having done anything more. I leave that question with him. If he does not have the answer today, perhaps he will write to me afterwards.

Christopher Chope: Perhaps we will deal with that in Committee. I admit to being present during the fantastic speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) in support of her Bill, but I must admit that I was not following every iota of its content, so I am not sure whether what has been said on her behalf by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) is a valid objection to or criticism of my Bill.
	Despite my hon. Friend’s intervention, I will not be diverted from finishing expressing my concerns about the proposals for the admission of the EU to the European convention on human rights. Fortunately, my understanding is that our Government have a veto, and its details are being discussed at intergovernmental level—certainly by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe this week. I hope that the Minister will realise after this debate that we need to be alert and concerned about the implications of what is happening.
	I say that because on 19 May 2010, the European Parliament passed a resolution on what it described as
	“the institutional aspects of the accession of the European Union to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms”.
	Like most such resolutions, it is rather too long for most of us to bother to read—it runs to several pages—but I want to draw the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends to paragraph K on page 2. It states that the European Parliament stresses that
	“the main arguments in favour of accession of the Union”—
	the European Union—
	“to the ECHR…may be summarised as follows: accession constitutes a move forward in the process of European integration and involves one further step towards political Union”.
	If that is the interpretation put on it by the European Parliament, we need go no further than getting a commitment from the Government today that they will not support this, and that in discussions on it they will play hardball, rather than the softball they have been playing up to now over EU powers.
	The resolution also states that
	“while the Union’s system for the protection of fundamental rights will be supplemented and enhanced by the incorporation…into its primary law, its accession to the ECHR will send a strong signal concerning the coherence between the Union and the countries belonging to the Council of Europe”.
	It is actually nothing short of an attempted takeover. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) will probably be alert to the point at which the resolution states that
	“accession will also compensate to some extent for the fact that the scope of the Court of Justice of the European Union is somewhat constrained in the matters of foreign and security policy and police and security policy by providing useful external judicial supervision of all EU activities”.
	This is all part of the creep and incrementalism of the EU as it tries to put its finger into everybody’s pies.

William Cash: Given that the Prime Minister is coming to the House in about 40 minutes, will my hon. Friend bear it in mind that in the context of the matters to which he has referred—foreign and security policy and so on—it is woefully apparent that the EU had absolutely
	nothing to offer other than obstacles in dealing with the question of a no-fly zone, or indeed any other matter relating to Libya?

Christopher Chope: That is absolutely right. Of course, we know that at the Security Council key members of the EU—France and this country—voted one way, but the Germans did not support us. They did not support us in the Security Council, but that is not the end of our friendship in Europe, and I do not think that our Government should be saying that if they do not do everything that German Governments want to do in Europe, it will undermine European solidarity. It is possible for sovereign countries to disagree on these issues.
	At the European Parliament on Monday, I attended a meeting that included Mr Duff, to whom the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) referred earlier. It was a meeting of about half a dozen Members of the European Parliament and half a dozen Members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe to look into the details of EU admission to the ECHR. Important questions were posed to which no answers were given. For example, at the moment, a number of EU countries have opt-outs from various parts of the European convention or its protocols, yet the EU is proposing to sign up to the convention in toto and to its protocols. To what extent does that mean that the EU member states that have taken a different view of particular provisions of the European convention will find that, notwithstanding their reservations, they are bound into that regime by the fact that the EU has joined the ECHR?
	At a time when we are concerned about prisoner voting rights, for example, and about the administration of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe—will it accept our right to have a bit of latitude in the interpretation of the treaty, or will it insist on forcing through the exact terms of the judgment?—it has been proposed that the EU should join the Committee of Ministers. There is also a proposal that the European Parliament should join in part the PACE, even though the Council of Europe treaty that set up the Council in 1949 expressly provides that the members of the Parliamentary Assembly should be elected parliamentarians from the member countries that join the Council of Europe. The EU is not a country and is not signing up to the Council Europe; it is only seeking to sign up to the ECHR.
	I cannot go into all the details now. However, I want to draw my hon. Friend the Minister’s attention to exactly how grave and serious the issue is and how much it threatens to undermine his and the Government’s position, which is to ensure that we do not cede any more sovereignty to European institutions. Indeed, we ought to try to regain control over issues such as the fundamental rights convention and the Fundamental Rights Agency, which we want to bring back under this Parliament’s control. I know that a lot of other people want to join in this debate, but may I just say that the Bill would be a useful way of ensuring that this Parliament has its voice? This Parliament needs to do what the MEPs are doing against us. On every single occasion, they try to extend their remit, so that they have more control. We in this Parliament should increase our power and ensure that we have greater control over what his happening in our name.

Mark Harper: So far, my hon. Friend has concentrated his speech largely on the EU and the ECHR. However, I would like to pick up on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley). Does my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) intend to address clause 3(b), which talks not only about European institutions, but about international law and all of Britain’s other treaty and international obligations, which would be affected quite dramatically by the Bill?

Christopher Chope: Frankly, I was not going to, but if my hon. Friend is going to use clause 3(b) as a justification for not supporting my Bill, and if he thinks that it should be excluded and that the ambit of the Bill is too wide, I will allow him to dilate on that at length, if need be, during his remarks. I am a perfectly reasonable person, and if he thinks that clause 3(b) goes too far, I might be amenable to an amendment to delete it.

William Cash: I think that the Minister might be in grave danger of misunderstanding the Bill’s provisions. It does not say that it will override any international law; all it says is that, under clause 2, if there is any question of an increase in the functions of the EU affecting the UK or if a legal instrument is inconsistent with the Bill, the judiciary would not be able to invoke any rule of international law in order to frustrate that provision. However, we could discuss all this in Committee, as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) has rightly said.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention.

Peter Bottomley: But is our hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) right? I am not sure that if we read the Bill from beginning to end, which is the way that I normally try to read Bills, we find that it says that. If my hon. Friend thought that he ought to curtail his speech—we thought he had just been clearing his throat—because others want to speak, or because he wants the Government to explain, I am sure we ought to stick by our normal conventions. I know that it is a rule but not a convention. My hon. Friend normally keeps the House going for quite some time when a private Member’s Bill is being promoted, and the Minister does not always have time to complete his speech. I do not see why he should change the convention simply because my hon. Friend is promoting a Bill himself.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend has failed to look at today’s Order Paper and failed to notice that I do not have one Bill but several, and therefore I have a conflict of interest. If I speak too long on one Bill, I may jeopardise the chance of being able to speak on my next.

Peter Bone: Just before my hon. Friend concludes, I want to put in my bid to be on the Bill Committee. We have heard from several hon. Members that they want to be on the Committee, and I would like to add my name.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that and for being one of the sponsors of the Bill, which is supported not just by me but by a lot of hon. Members.

Bernard Jenkin: May I put in a bid for our hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) as well?

Christopher Chope: Okay.

Chris Bryant: rose—

Peter Bone: He wants to be on it too!

Chris Bryant: No, this is an application not to be on the Bill Committee. I have heard these arguments so many times that I have no desire to hear them all over again, even if it would give us an opportunity to hear the whole of the Minister’s speech on the subject. May I point out to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) that greed is a sin? Taking so many private Members’ Bills on one day might be thought somewhat greedy.

Christopher Chope: I have been accused of many things, but not greed. People who are frustrated legislators and willing to spend a couple of nights sleeping in the Palace of Westminster to queue up for their tickets may have the opportunity of having their Bills brought before the House. I hope that some of my other Bills on the Order Paper will be debated, not least my Local Government Ombudsman (Amendment) Bill. When I first put that title down last June, I had not anticipated that I would read in my local paper last Friday that the Hampshire county council health and safety people had interfered in the Beaulieu pancake race, so that it is now the Beaulieu pancake walk rather than race. I had not realised that my third Bill would be so relevant to a local story, but now it has a relevance above all else. I hope that we get a chance to discuss it.

Peter Bottomley: I do not think that my hon. Friend should have taken the words of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant)—who is speaking for the whole of his party, I see—too seriously, partly because we should not accuse someone of greed during Lent, but also because the House should be grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing the Bills along together. It is no different from a group of MPs sharing a taxi: it is simply combining things. My hon. Friend is now talking about his third Bill. What about his second one?

Christopher Chope: I will not talk about my second Bill yet. I hope that we will get a chance to have a proper debate on that.

William Cash: I am little surprised to be called so early in the debate, not least because I have dilated on this subject on many occasions. [Hon. Members: “No!”] Protests will not put me off doing so again.
	I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) on introducing the Bill, not only because this is such an auspicious time, given that we are now in the midst of debating the European Union Bill, which is still in the other place, but because
	of the continuing flow of, I have to say, clearly deliberate attempts by the coalition Government to throw doubt on the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament, some of which have been diverted by the European Scrutiny Committee report. I am extremely glad to note that the explanatory notes to the European Union Bill have been changed, something that has not been mentioned publicly by the Government or the media. The explanatory notes on clause 18, or the so-called sovereignty clause, which we were able to demonstrate it was not, have been revised in the light of the European Scrutiny Committee report. I am glad that they have been changed to get rid of some of the Committee’s gravest objections to how the Government were seeking to apply what is known as the common law principle. I do not need to go into all the detail because we debated it at great length.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman has referred to clause 18 of the European Union Bill, the so-called sovereignty clause. He will recall that amendments not passed in this House would have gone in the direction of this Bill. Would it not be bizarre if this House were to send two Bills to the House of Lords at the same time that were mutually contradictory?

William Cash: It would be highly desirable. This Bill would in fact succeed the European Union Bill in order. We know that any Act of Parliament that is subsequent to a previous Act and is inconsistent with it, particularly in the context of sovereignty issues, overrides the previous Act. Therefore, if this Bill were enacted—if it followed the European Union Bill—it would supersede it. It would thereby also have the great advantage of overriding the manifestly absurd and, I believe, completely unlawful motion—unlawful in constitutional terms—that was passed, which said that this House did not reaffirm the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament. When I use the word “unlawful” in this context, I simply mean that the European Union Bill is still under consideration by both Houses. I am using that expression with regard to the constitutionality of the matter, but it is a very important question and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised that point, because it is important that we get it straightened out.
	I come back to the explanatory notes. The report that the European Scrutiny Committee produced, which was unanimous, particularly on clause 18, was based on evidence from pretty well all the pre-eminent constitutional experts on what sovereignty meant in the context of the European Union Bill and in general. There was complete unanimity that the Bill did not contain what was on the tin, that it did not confer sovereignty and that the provision was not needed. However, read in the context of the explanatory notes, the invocation of the common law principle, which is a very profound question that has been raging in academic circles and the establishment for a long time, has the effect of reinforcing the view expressed in certain quarters, particularly in certain parts of the Supreme Court, that the sovereignty of Parliament is qualified by the ultimate authority of the courts, which is not something that the public at large would agree with, to say the least, or, for that matter, that they even knew was happening. The expression “common-law principle” has now been taken out of the explanatory notes, which is a great victory for the European Scrutiny Committee and will help substantially to alter the position in the right direction.
	I am not convinced that the argument has been completely resolved, but the discussions of the kind that we are having today are helpful in further removing any doubt about the question of the sovereignty of Parliament. That is because the sovereignty of Parliament is not a purely theoretical abstraction; it is to do with the practical application of law passed in this House and in the other place for the purpose of implementing legislative proposals emanating from the Government or other sources to reflect the views of the electorate. In other words, this is essentially a democratic question.
	In cases in which European Union law, European Court of Human Rights law and European convention law contradict the wishes of the electorate, it must be made clear that the sovereignty of Parliament will override such provisions in a way that ensures that the wishes of the electorate are complied with, consistently with general election and manifesto pledges, irrespective of coalition agreements, and in a manner that guarantees that the electorate’s views are not only understood but put into effect.

Bernard Jenkin: I took part in the debates on the European Union Bill, and the European Scrutiny Committee is to be commended for what it achieved in setting the record straight that sovereignty was not a common law principle but a fact of history. However, what we proposed in that Bill, and what is being proposed here, is to put the word “sovereignty” into statute. My hon. Friend’s Committee never took advice on that question, but we rather assumed that this would be a good thing to do. What does he say to those who are concerned that it would actually make the concept of sovereignty justiciable if we placed it in statute, and that we are in danger of drawing the courts into a dispute with Parliament about what sovereignty is?

William Cash: I accept that that is an important point, but we have been put in this position, historically and legally, by the manner in which the European Communities Act 1972 has increasingly been eating away at the way in we legislate in this House.
	This is a difficult question, and I do not want to get too historical about it, but similar considerations arose at the time of the passing of the Bill of Rights, and also in the proposed constitutional settlement around 1648. At that time, the sovereignty of the monarch was regarded by the Crown as absolute, and there was a question of how to deal with that. Unfortunately, it was dealt with, in the words of Oliver Cromwell, as a matter of “cruel necessity”. Despite the fact that many people did not want it to happen, he took off the King’s head as a symbolic demonstration that the King was no longer sovereign.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am afraid that I would dispute my hon. Friend’s interpretation of what led to the execution of Charles I. I think it was much more complicated than that.

William Cash: I am prepared to accept that it was more complicated than that. I am making a point, but I defer to my hon. Friend. The real point is that the word “sovereignty” in this context has a practical, legal and factual base. We need to assert our sovereignty when it is under invasion, which is exactly what is going on now. I think that that is the simplest way to put it.

Bernard Jenkin: One of the most important points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) was that there is no substitute for Parliament exercising its sovereignty. In that respect, our amendment to the European Union Bill and the Bill before us are a cry of despair. They are not a substitute for Parliament exercising its sovereignty. No amount of legislating for parliamentary sovereignty will match the exercise of our sovereignty. As one of my hon. Friends said to me this morning, it is a bit like the parish council beating the bounds of the parish. It is a long time since we exercised our sovereignty in that way here, but sooner or later we are going to have to do so, to prove that we still have it.

William Cash: The question also arises in the context of assertions by the courts. It is important that we respect the independence of the judiciary, but the judiciary in turn must respect the rights and privileges of the elected House of Commons and, indeed, Parliament as a whole. The claims that have been made, which are set out in the European Scrutiny Committee report, clearly demonstrate that moves are not only afoot but under way to qualify the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament and Acts of Parliament. Such moves fall back on an assertion that they are relying on the rule of law. I have asked questions about this repeatedly, not least in a debate in Westminster Hall yesterday on the Bill of Rights, and suggested that we ask these questions: whose law, which law, and how has it arisen?

Henry Smith: This country has an evolving constitution that is not written down in any one place. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a danger of authority slipping away from Parliament unless we restate that?

William Cash: That is completely right, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for not only his intervention but his notable contribution to the European Scrutiny Committee, of which he is a member.
	The question of amending the Bill gives me an opportunity to set out another short clause that might be added to it.

Chris Bryant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

William Cash: I would just like to get this out of the way, if I may, because it is quite a useful and explicit affirmation of what we could do in practice to ensure that there is no doubt about what is being done. The new clause in question could be phrased in this way: “Any Act of Parliament or legal instrument expressly stating that that Act or instrument shall be ‘notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972’ or ‘notwithstanding the European convention on human rights and the Human Rights Act 1998’ shall be construed by the courts of the United Kingdom as having the effect of disapplying and overriding any Act or legal instrument to which it refers.” That would put the position completely on all fours with the evidence that we have received from the constitutional experts.
	For many years, I have said that we need a way to get round the problem of provisions emanating from the European Communities Act 1972, and the treaties and legal instruments made under it, being inconsistent
	with our national interests. To achieve that—in line with cases such as Macarthys
	v.
	Smith under Lord Denning and Garland
	v.
	British Rail Engineering under Lord Diplock, which remain good law despite what the Supreme Court has said recently—we need, precedent to an Act of Parliament and in relation to European Union legislation, to use the expression “notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972” to make it clear that we are legislating subsequent to an existing enactment and expressly inconsistently with it. That would oblige the courts to give effect to the later legislation. There are occasions when it is clear that the Government would want to do that but cannot do it, or do not want to do it, or would prefer the whole subject to go away. I am looking closely at the Minister at this point. There is nobody who wants this subject to go away more than the Prime Minister does.
	It is a problem. I recognise the dilemma, and I have to say, in all fairness, that I have absolutely no doubt about the need for the remedy. I understand that there are inconveniences in having the European Union producing legislation that this country does not want, which might have been thought to be a good idea in the past. Some thought that the working time directive was a good idea, but it has turned out to have all kinds of unfortunate consequences. The same could be said of other matters such as the over-regulation of business.
	When we were in opposition in 2006, I tabled an amendment to the then Government’s Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, based on the “notwithstanding” formula, in order to improve the opportunities for British business, helping it to grow and get away from unnecessary burdens imposed by the European Union. During the afternoon that I proposed that amendment, a series of Whips’ meetings took place. The Whips came to me and said, “Bill, would you be good enough to allow us to adopt your amendment and to put in Tellers?” When the vote took place on the words
	“notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972”,
	teams of the present Government walked through the Lobbies to support my amendment, which they had adopted—and six weeks later on a whipped vote in the House of Lords, they reconfirmed it. There was no doubt about the intention there. The principle is thus established by the European Scrutiny Committee report, by the evidence we received and by the conduct of the Prime Minister who was then the Leader of the Opposition.

Peter Bone: My hon. Friend is generous. Could the whole problem be solved by putting those magic words on the front of every Act of Parliament, thus forcing the courts to interpret the Act of Parliament as the supreme law, not the one from the European Union?

William Cash: We could do that, although it might not be desirable or necessary to do it for every Act of Parliament. I shall come on to some cases later, but we are about to go into an adjournment, if that is the right expression, when the Prime Minister will make an important statement on Libya and the UN resolution. I believe my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) made an important point, which clearly summarises the position. It would not need to apply to every Act of Parliament, but only where it was necessary in respect of European Union law or the European convention on human rights—on issues like votes for prisoners, for example.

Angie Bray: May I ask for a little more clarity? If my hon. Friend gets his way, will it mean that we would no longer have to beat the bounds, so to speak?

William Cash: We would not have to beat the European bounds, that’s for sure, but my hon. Friend makes a valid point. The problem has overtaken the history of this Parliament, so it is important that we get back to first principles—that we should legislate in accordance with the wishes of the electorate. My hon. Friends the Members for Wellingborough and for Christchurch, I and many other Members here today have argued for a full and effective referendum to deal with this question in line with the wishes of the electorate, but in between times, we are being affected in our daily lives by a stream—a tsunami—of legislation emanating from the European Union, much of which is an obstruction and an obstacle to the generation of economic growth in this country at a time of austerity when the deficit requires us to improve our legislation in a manner consistent with creating growth and business opportunities. All that shows that this is not just a theoretical question; it is about the practical impact of the European Union on the daily lives of the electorate. [ Interruption .]
	I am delighted to see that the House is filling up with Members, but I have a feeling that it has to do with something other than the Bill proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch. However, it provides an opportunity for us to get our case across to the more exalted Members of this House—at any rate, members of the Executive—so that they can benefit from knowing that we are engaged in these difficult times in ensuring that we reaffirm the sovereignty of the UK Parliament.
	I also see the Deputy Prime Minister, so I point out to him as he assumes his place that his suggestion that we will not repatriate our laws, despite the Conservative manifesto which said that we would, is in the minds of many people in the Conservative part of the coalition and it is still absolutely on the agenda. We repudiate his suggestion that there will be no “backward step”, as he puts it; we will repatriate, because we will insist on doing so. We will do so through the aegis of the sovereignty of this Parliament when there is a clear threat from European legislation or legislation emanating from the European convention on human rights or the European Court of Human Rights—whether it is on votes for prisoners, or whatever. We will insist that the legislation we pass in this House reflects the wishes of the electorate, not just those of the cognoscenti, the elite, the establishment
	or those who form part of the present coalition. We respect the Executive, but we beg to differ, and we insist that under no circumstances whatever will we allow the sovereignty of the UK Parliament to be overridden by assertions from the Deputy Prime Minister or anybody else.

David Nuttall: My hon. Friend heard from many experts when he chaired the investigation of the European Scrutiny Committee into clause 18 of the European Union Bill. Will he clarify that the matters of concern expressed this morning about this House’s loss of sovereignty were confirmed by many of the experts from whom he heard?

William Cash: They certainly were; most of the experts took this view.
	Now that the Prime Minister has come into the Chamber, may I take the opportunity to congratulate him on the manner in which he asserted in his own way the sovereignty of this country in his determination to ensure there is to be a no-fly zone over Libya? The very fact that he was able to do that, notwithstanding the impediments put in place by the European Union and others, demonstrates precisely what we are saying in this debate—that it is the sovereignty of the UK Parliament that lies at the heart of how we conduct our affairs in this country. In respect of the no-fly zone and related matters, the Prime Minister has done this country a great service. He has demonstrated that, notwithstanding the obstacles put forward by other members of the European Union, we still have residual powers, although I wish they were much greater.
	If this Bill were to go through, we would override the amendment that was, unfortunately, passed a few weeks ago, which did not reaffirm the sovereignty of the UK Parliament, and we would put it right. I am extremely glad for the opportunity to debate this matter at this auspicious time.
	There are many practical aspects to the Bill, which I shall come on to later. I understand that the Prime Minister has an important statement to make to bring us up to date about Libya. I shall move on to the more practical issues afterwards. I shall seek to demonstrate why we must insist that the European Union does not ride roughshod over the wishes of the electorate, as it has done so frequently in the past. We must reassert the supremacy of this House, whether it be on issues like prisoners’ votes or—
	Proceedings interrupted (Standing Order No. 11(4)).

UN Security Council Resolution (Libya)

David Cameron: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on last night’s UN Security Council resolution on Libya.
	Over three weeks ago, the people of Libya took to the streets in protest against Colonel Gaddafi and his regime, asking for new rights and freedoms. There were hopeful signs that a better future awaited them, and that, like people elsewhere in the middle east and north Africa, they were taking their destiny into their own hands. Far from meeting those aspirations, Colonel Gaddafi has responded by attacking his own people. He has brought the full might of armed forces to bear on them, backed up by mercenaries. The world has watched as he has brutally crushed his own people.
	On 23 February, the UN Secretary-General cited the reported nature and scale of attacks on civilians as
	“egregious violations of international and human rights law”
	and called on the Government of Libya to
	“meet its responsibility to protect its people.”
	The Secretary-General said later that more than 1,000 people had been killed and many more injured in Libya amid credible and consistent reports of arrests, detention and torture.
	Over the weekend of 26 and 27 February, at Britain's instigation, the UN Security Council agreed resolution 1970, which condemned Gaddafi's actions. It imposed a travel ban and asset freezes on those at the top of his regime. It demanded an end to the violence, access for international human rights monitors and the lifting of restrictions on the media. Vitally, it referred the situation in Libya to the International Criminal Court so that its leaders should face the justice they deserve.
	In my statement to the House on 28 February, I set out the steps that we would take to implement those measures. Our consistent approach has been to isolate the Gaddafi regime, deprive it of money, shrink its power and ensure that anyone responsible for abuses in Libya will be held to account. I also told the House that I believed contingency planning should be done for different scenarios, including involving military assets, and that that should include plans for a no-fly zone.
	Intervening in another country's affairs should not be undertaken save in quite exceptional circumstances. That is why we have always been clear that preparing for eventualities that might include the use of force—including a no-fly zone or other measures to stop humanitarian catastrophe—would require three steps and three tests to be met: demonstrable need, regional support, and a clear legal basis.
	First, on demonstrable need, Gaddafi’s regime has ignored the demand of UN Security Council resolution 1970 that it stop the violence against the Libyan people. His forces have attacked peaceful protesters, and are now preparing for a violent assault on a city, Benghazi, of 1 million people that has a history dating back 2,500 years. They have begun air strikes in anticipation of what we expect to be a brutal attack using air, land and sea forces. Gaddafi has publicly promised that every home will be searched and that there will be no mercy and no pity shown.
	If we want any sense of what that might mean we have only to look at what happened in Zawiyah, where tanks and heavy weaponry were used to smash through a heavily populated town with heavy loss of life. We do not have to guess what happens when he has subdued a population. Human Rights Watch has catalogued the appalling human rights abuses that are being committed in Tripoli. Now, the people of eastern Libya are faced with the same treatment. That is the demonstrable need.
	Secondly, on regional support, we said that there must be a clear wish from the people of Libya and the wider region for international action. It was the people of Libya, through their transitional national council, who were the first to call for protection from air attack through a no-fly zone. More recently, the Arab League has made the same demand.
	It has been remarkable how Arab leaders have come forward and condemned the actions of Gaddafi’s Government. In recent days, I have spoken with the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Jordan. A number of Arab nations have made it clear that they are willing to participate in enforcing the resolution. That support goes far beyond the Arab world. Last night, all three African members of the UN Security Council voted in favour of the resolution.
	The third and essential condition was that there should be a clear legal base. That is why along with France, Lebanon and the United States we worked hard to draft appropriate language that could command the support of the international community. Last night, the United Nations Security Council agreed that resolution. Resolution 1973
	“Demands the immediate establishment of a ceasefire and a complete end to violence and all attacks against, and abuses of, civilians”.
	It establishes
	“a ban on all flights”
	in the airspace of Libya
	“in order to help protect civilians”.
	It authorises member states to take
	“all necessary measures to enforce compliance with the ban”.
	Crucially, in paragraph 4, it
	“Authorises member states…acting nationally or through regional organisations or arrangements, and acting in co-operation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures…to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack...including Benghazi”.
	The resolution both authorises and sets the limits of our action. Specifically, it excludes an occupation force of any form, on any part of Libyan territory. That was a clear agreement between all the sponsors of the resolution, including the UK, and of course, the Arab League. I absolutely believe that that is the right thing both to say and to do.
	As our ambassador to the United Nations said, the central purpose of this resolution is to end the violence, protect civilians, and allow the people of Libya to determine their own future, free from the brutality unleashed by the Gaddafi regime. The Libyan population want the same rights and freedoms that people across the middle east and north Africa are demanding, and that are enshrined in the values of the United Nations
	charter. Resolution 1973 puts the weight of the Security Council squarely behind the Libyan people in defence of those values. Our aims are entirely encapsulated by that resolution.
	Demonstrable need, regional support and a clear legal base: the three criteria are now satisfied in full. Now that the UN Security Council has reached its decision, there is a responsibility on its members to respond. That is what Britain, with others, will now do. The Attorney-General has been consulted and the Government are satisfied that there is a clear and unequivocal legal basis for the deployment of UK forces and military assets. He advised Cabinet this morning, and his advice was read and discussed. The Security Council has adopted resolution 1973 as a measure to maintain or restore international peace and security under chapter VII of the United Nations charter. The resolution specifically authorises notifying member states to use all necessary measures to enforce a no-fly zone and to protect civilians and civilian populated areas, including Benghazi.
	At Cabinet this morning, we agreed that the UK will play its part. Our forces will join an international operation to enforce the resolution if Gaddafi fails to comply with the demand that he end attacks on civilians. The Defence Secretary and I have now instructed the Chief of the Defence Staff to work urgently with our allies to put in place the appropriate military measures to enforce the resolution, including a no-fly zone. I can tell the House that Britain will deploy Tornadoes and Typhoons as well as air-to-air refuelling and surveillance aircraft. Preparations to deploy those aircraft have already started and in the coming hours they will move to air bases from where they can start to take the necessary action.
	The Government will table a substantive motion for debate next week, but I am sure that the House will accept that the situation requires us to move forward on the basis of the Security Council resolution immediately. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House call on Colonel Gaddafi to respond immediately to the will of the international community and cease the violence against his own people. I spoke to President Obama last night and to President Sarkozy this morning. There will be a clear statement later today, setting out what we now expect from Colonel Gaddafi.
	We should never prepare to deploy British forces lightly or without careful thought. In this case, I believe that we have given extremely careful thought to the situation in hand. It is absolutely right that we played a leading role on the UN Security Council to secure permission for the action, and that we now work with allies to ensure that that resolution is brought about. There will be many people in our country who will now want questions answered about what we are doing and how we will go about it. I intend to answer all those questions in the hours and days ahead, and to work with our brave armed services to ensure that we do the right thing, for the people of Libya, for the people of our country and for the world as a whole.

Edward Miliband: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. From this side of the House, we welcome last night’s UN Security Council resolution and support Britain playing its full part in the international action that is planned.
	The international community has shown clear resolve, and I applaud all the efforts that made this happen, including those of the Prime Minister and the British Government. As I have said since his statement two-and-a-half weeks ago, we support feasible and practical action to help the Libyan people, so, as befits the official Opposition, we will both support the Government and ask the necessary questions that we think the country will want asked.
	It is important that the British people are clear about the purposes of the resolution and the basis for the commitment of British forces. Any decision to commit British armed forces is a grave and serious one, and it must be based on a clear and compelling case. In this case, it is based, as the Prime Minister said, on the clear evidence of Colonel Gaddafi brutalising his own people in response to the demand for democratic change.
	It is action backed in the region most importantly by the clear resolution of the Arab League, and it is backed now by a legal mandate from the United Nations, so the military action that is being embarked upon has broad support, a legal base and recognises our responsibility to protect the Libyan people. Those are necessary pre-conditions for legitimate and effective action, and it would be quite wrong, given what is happening in Libya, for us to stand by and do nothing.
	I want to ask some questions about the objectives of the mission, the military implications of it and the humanitarian context. First, we need to be clear about the purpose of the mission. All of us will welcome the passage of last night’s resolution to avoid the immediate slaughter of people in Benghazi. The whole world is aware of the urgency of the situation, given the avowed intentions of Colonel Gaddafi. Can the Prime Minister reassure us that military action can be taken on a time scale that can make a real difference to the people in Benghazi?
	Beyond that, should, as we hope, the effect of last night’s resolution be to stop the advance of the regime, the future of Libya remains uncertain. Will the Prime Minister therefore explain the Government’s broader strategy for Libya’s future, should we succeed in stopping Colonel Gaddafi’s advance, given that last night’s resolution is directed towards a specific aim of the protection of the Libyan people, rather than explicitly towards regime change?
	In this House there is agreement that Libya’s future would be far better served without Colonel Gaddafi in power. Does the Prime Minister therefore agree that a range of other measures should continue to be brought to bear on the Libyan regime to support the efforts of the Libyan people in order to undermine the support for Colonel Gaddafi?
	We should be working now to sharpen the choice facing the Libyan military, including through action from the International Criminal Court, and to increase the pressure on other members of the regime. We should also be making explicit the risks for countries allowing their citizens to serve as mercenaries, and I believe the UN resolution does recognise that point. We should also continue to make clear to the Libyan people the offer of a better life that lies beyond Colonel Gaddafi.
	May I urge the Prime Minister to ensure that discussions take place at the earliest stage with the Arab League, the European Union and others on a continuing basis for contingency planning for a stable and viable state beyond Colonel Gaddafi?
	May I also, in the broader context of the region, emphasise to the Prime Minister that we should continue to show the utmost vigilance about developments elsewhere, including in Bahrain, and that we should make clear the need for reform and restraint, not repression, throughout the region?
	Secondly, let me ask about the military action itself. Will the Prime Minister reassure us that all steps are being taken to ensure that those participating in any military action reflect the broad base of support, including from the Arab League? Does he agree that a continuing diplomatic effort will be required to ensure that that happens?
	Further, under the contingencies that have been prepared and subject to the operational limits on what the Prime Minister can say, how does he envisage the military chain of command operating?
	Thirdly, let me ask about the humanitarian situation in Libya. Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to update the House on the continuing situation of British nationals in the light of the clearly changed circumstances that we now face? We will have all noted with concern the decision of the Red Cross, prior to the resolution, to withdraw from Benghazi. Will the Prime Minister assure the House that efforts will be made to ensure continuing humanitarian access to Benghazi? What plans are being made to facilitate the return of humanitarian assistance?
	Finally, let me say to the Prime Minister that, at this time, Labour Members will give our full support to our armed forces. Once again, they are engaging in dangerous and courageous action on behalf of our country, and we salute their professionalism and bravery. They are serving to uphold the will of the international community, including the United Nations, and in their service I believe they will have the support of the whole House.

David Cameron: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support and for the way in which he put that support in his questions. Let me try to answer all the questions he put.
	In terms of the time scale and potential military action, the issue is this: the Security Council resolution is absolutely clear in its first paragraph that there should be a ceasefire and that Gaddafi should stop his attacks on his people. But, if that does not happen, then, yes, consequences and “all necessary measures”, as the Security Council resolution puts it, will follow; and we are able to do that on a time scale that I believe will be effective.
	In terms of our broader strategy, what we believe we need in Libya is a transition towards a more open society and towards a better democracy, but we have to be clear about our aims. The UN Security Council resolution is absolutely clear that this is about saving lives and about protecting people. It is not about choosing the Government of Libya; that is an issue for the Libyan people.
	Mercenaries are included in the UN Security Council resolution, which is welcome. The right hon. Gentleman’s point about the International Criminal Court was covered by the earlier resolution, which of course is still in force.
	In terms of consultations with the Arab League and with Arab countries, there will be a meeting in Paris tomorrow, which President Sarkozy has called. I will attend, and there will also be representatives from across the Arab world to bring together the coalition to help to achieve the goals that the UN Security Council has so rightly voted for.
	The right hon. Gentleman says that we must be vigilant elsewhere with all the challenging problems in our world today, and he mentioned Bahrain. That is absolutely right, and the Government are keeping their travel advice and their work helping British nationals in Bahrain, Yemen and elsewhere permanently under review, meeting regularly to try to make sure that we do everything we can to help people as necessary.
	In terms of Arab League participation, what we seek is the active participation of some Arab League countries. I believe that we will get that, and from the calls that I have made I have had some reassurances.
	In terms of the military chain of command, to be clear, to begin with this is going to be a joint operation, if necessary, carried out by Britain, America and France, with Arab and other participation, and it will be co-ordinated in that way.
	In terms of British nationals, as we have announced before in the House, almost all those who want to leave have left. There are some who remain. We have our relationship with the Turkish embassy, which is working with us and for us in Tripoli, and we also have an active consular figure in Benghazi. But obviously, part of the aim of what we are trying to do—to stop Gaddafi entering Benghazi—will be in the interest of those British nationals in Benghazi.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked about humanitarian aid. Clearly, a very big aim of the UN Security Council is to make sure humanitarian aid can get through.
	Above all, as the right hon. Gentleman said, any decision to put the men and women of our armed forces into harm’s way should be taken only when absolutely necessary, but I believe, as he said, that we cannot stand back and let a dictator whose people have rejected him kill his people indiscriminately. To do so would send a chilling signal to others.
	I believe also that we should be clear about where our interests lie. In this country, in particular, we know what Colonel Gaddafi is capable of, and we should not forget his support for the biggest terrorist atrocity on British soil. We simply cannot have a situation where a failed pariah state festers on Europe’s southern border, and that is why we are backing today our words with action.

Malcolm Rifkind: May I congratulate the Prime Minister on the superb leadership that he and the Foreign Secretary have given both at home and at the United Nations in securing this resolution, without which the people of Benghazi and of Libya would face a humanitarian disaster?
	Will the Prime Minister confirm that the UN resolution, which, as he has indicated, refers to
	“all necessary measures…to protect…civilian populated areas”,
	will enable our forces to be used not simply to intercept Libyan aircraft but if necessary to attack heavy artillery, tanks and other military units on the ground that might be threatening civilian populated areas?

David Cameron: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his support, and I agree that time is now crucial. It is vital that we have now got this UN Security Council resolution, and that we make very clear the ultimatum to Colonel Gaddafi so that we secure that ceasefire and stop his operations.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked what the Security Council permits us to do. Paragraph 4 refers, crucially, to “all necessary measures” to protect people—“to protect civilians”—and, indeed, specifically mentions Benghazi. The Attorney-General’s advice, which we may discuss in more detail later, makes it very clear that that means we can take measures that will help those things to be achieved. It is very important for us to understand that.

Mike Gapes: I congratulate the Prime Minister and those in the Foreign Office, including our excellent diplomats at the United Nations, on the work that they have done in securing the chapter VII resolution. The French Government should also be given a great deal of credit, because they too have worked very hard on this.
	Will the Prime Minister clarify the role of the African Union, which is referred to in the resolution, as well as that of the Arab League? Given that three African states, including South Africa, voted for the resolution, is there any possibility of the African Union using its good offices to try to find a way of getting Gaddafi out of power without the conflict going on for a very long time?

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point about the leadership role taken by Nicolas Sarkozy and the French. I think the work that the French, the British and the Lebanese did together on the UN Security Council was vital. I absolutely pay tribute to our ambassador, Mark Lyall Grant, and his team, who did a superb job in marshalling support. Members in all parts of the House will see, when they read the resolution, that it is very, very strong and extremely comprehensive, and I hope that it marks a new start in what the UN will be able to achieve.
	We very much hope that the African Union will use its good offices in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests. African Union missions are still going to Libya, and we think that they will be enormously influential. I was particularly pleased that the three African members voted for the resolution, and I hope that that is a sign of things to come.

Richard Ottaway: As one of the doubting Thomases of the past few weeks, I congratulate the Prime Minister on his success and leadership and offer him my full support. I also join him in paying tribute to Sir Mark Lyall Grant and his team at the UN for what is a remarkable diplomatic success, which hopefully will mark a turning point in the development of these issues at the UN.
	I am sure the Prime Minister agrees that difficult questions remain. At this moment, however, it is incumbent on all of us to stand behind the armed forces, particularly our airmen, who have to implement the resolution.

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Of course there are difficult questions. We are embarked on a difficult course, not least because we have set a limit on that course and have said, quite rightly, that this is not about an army of occupation. I think it important for us all to understand that that is a correct limit, and a limit that people across the Arab world want to hear.
	I very much echo what my hon. Friend said about Mark Lyall Grant, but above all our thoughts—the thoughts of everyone in the House and, I am sure, everyone in our country—will be with those armed forces and their families who will be preparing, potentially, for difficult days ahead.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: The Government and the armed forces have our full support in this matter.
	The Prime Minister mentioned three criteria for determining the appropriateness of intervention, but surely there is another factor: the question of whether we have the capacity and the military assets to intervene in situations such as this. In the light of developments in the middle east in recent weeks, will the Prime Minister and his colleagues have another look at the strategic defence and security review to establish whether our country will continue to have those assets in future?

David Cameron: Of course I look very carefully at every decision that we make in defence, and I see it as a personal priority for me as Prime Minister. I would say to colleagues, however, that even at the end of this defence review and the end of this Parliament, we will have the fourth largest defence budget anywhere in the world. We have superbly equipped armed forces, and many of the decisions that we made in the defence review were intended to ensure that they had flexibility: the ability to deploy, the ability to act out of area, extra investment in special forces, and extra investment in transport.
	I should also point out that the Typhoons that we are considering using are not in any way involved in Afghanistan. I have been given assurances by the Chief of the Defence Staff that our planning for what may be necessary in Libya does not affect the efforts that we are making in Afghanistan with our allies to bring greater security to that country.

James Arbuthnot: Yet again, my right hon. Friend has shown a breathtaking degree of courage and leadership. I support what he has said and what he has done. Does he agree that, while regime change is not the aim of these resolutions, in practice there is little realistic chance of achieving their aims without regime change?

David Cameron: My right hon. Friend puts it extremely well. The aim is clear: to put in place what has been required by the UN Security Council, which is a cessation of hostilities. It is the protection of lives and the protection of people. It is the prevention of a bloodbath in Benghazi. It is to make sure that arms do not get to Libya, that assets are frozen and that travel bans are imposed. It is all those things. Those are the aims, and they are what we must now pursue.
	Of course, like many other leaders the world over, we have all said that Gaddafi needs to go in order for Libya to have a peaceful, successful and democratic future, and that remains the case. It is almost impossible to envisage a future for Libya that includes him. But we should be very clear, in the international alliance that we are building, that the statements in the UN Security Council resolution are our aims. Those are the things that, on behalf of the rest of the world, we are helping, with others, to deliver.

Jeremy Corbyn: Abuses of human rights and the oppression of civilians are not unique to Libya. They may differ in degree, but they are not unique. Is the Prime Minister now suggesting that we should develop a foreign policy that would be prepared to countenance intervention in other countries where there are attacks on civilians, such as Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman or Bahrain? I hope that he has thought this whole thing through, because we may well be involved in a civil war in Libya for some time to come.

David Cameron: I sometimes want to meet that argument with the answer that the fact that you cannot do the right thing everywhere does not mean that you should not do the right thing somewhere. A more detailed answer, however, is that what is happening in Libya is different. The situation is that of a people rising up against their leaders and wanting a more democratic future, and then us watching as, potentially, those people are destroyed by that dictator.
	As I have said, I think that what we see coming together here is Britain acting with others in favour of international law and international governance and the UN and all that is right and fair and decent in our world, yet, at the same time, I believe, very much acting in our national interest, because it is not in our national interest for this man to lead a pariah state on the southern banks of Europe with all the problems that that could entail. So I hope that, not just across the world but across this country, we shall be able to build the broadest coalition for support for the action we are taking, encompassing all those who care about the UN and international law and what is good and right in our world, but who also recognise that a hard-headed assessment of British national interest means that we should not stand aside from this.

Stephen Gilbert: I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement and last night’s United Nations resolution. I think it is absolutely right for the international community to take urgent action to protect civilians in Libya. Will the Prime Minister please assure me that our intelligence assets in the region are doing all that they can to monitor the activities of, and communication between, senior regime leaders and commanders, with a view to ensuring that we can prosecute them to the fullest extent of international law?

David Cameron: Obviously—as the hon. Gentleman knows—we never comment on security and intelligence matters in the House. However, his point about the International Criminal Court and the need to be clear about the fact that, as I have said, international law
	should have a long arm, a long reach and a long memory and that we should gather evidence for that, is absolutely right.

Natascha Engel: Given the unpredictability of the outcomes in Libya and the middle east, and given that all actions have consequences, how can the Prime Minister be so sure that, as a consequence of what we are doing, a complex and dangerous situation will not simply be made worse?

David Cameron: The hon. Lady asks a very important question. It seems to me that we have to look at the consequences of doing nothing—the slaughter that could ensue, the oppression of these people we see so clearly on our television screens—and then ask what are the consequences of action. What is so convincing in this case is that the Arab League countries and Arab populations are, I believe, willing the international community on. I think that the opinion on the Arab street is very much that it is good that the international community is coming together and showing that it cares about our democracy and not just your security. I think that we can win that argument, but we will have to go on making it with Arab leaders and Arab populations, and making sure that we communicate with them very strongly why we are doing this and why it is the right thing.

Nicholas Soames: I join others in congratulating the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and all the others who have been involved in securing this very tough resolution, and indeed the building of a broad-based coalition to deal with Gaddafi. Does the Prime Minister agree, however, that in the weeks to come it will be important for the country to know that at the same time as trying to deal with Gaddafi, the Government are also intent on forging ahead, with our European partners, in keeping the middle east peace process revitalised and going, so that we can draw the poison from the well?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. A Palestinian leader once said to me, “If you really want to secure the long-term defeat of al-Qaeda, there must be a combination of more democracy and freedom across north Africa and the middle east and a solution to the Israel-Palestine problem.” Those two things together will go to the heart of the problems we face in our world.

David Winnick: As someone who has argued all along that any military action should be based on a resolution of the United Nations Security Council, I accept that the situation today is different from yesterday and previously. Nevertheless, despite all that the Prime Minister has said about reservations, no ground troops and so forth, does he recognise that in the country at large there is bound to be great anxiety that we could be dragged, through escalation, into a third war in nine years? Therefore, will the Prime Minister make sure that there are daily—or at least very regular—reports to the House of Commons, so we avoid a third war?

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman puts the point extremely well. I agree that there should be regular statements updating the House. We should start with a
	debate on Monday on a substantive motion, so that Members can debate that, and propose amendments if they want. We will be putting down that substantive motion later today, so that colleagues can have a look at it.
	On taking the country with us, the hon. Gentleman’s point about legality is vital. We have a legal basis here—the UN, the world’s governing body, coming together and making that clear—and we need to explain that what we are doing is legal, proportionate and right. But I also believe that, as I said a moment ago, to take people with us we have to make the arguments both that it is wrong to stand aside as this dictator massacres his own people and it is in our interests to act, and also that it is in our national interest, because we do not want this pariah state on our borders.
	The point the hon. Gentleman makes about no ground troops and no occupying force is vital. That is in the UN Security Council resolution; it is the reassurance that we can give to people that that is not part of our aims—it is not want the UN wants, it is not what the Arab League wants, it is not what Britain wants. That is clearly a limitation on our ability to act, but it is absolutely right, and I think people will be reassured by it.

Christopher Chope: May I also commend my right hon. Friend on his decisive leadership? Why does he think Germany abstained on this resolution, and is Germany going to be interfering in preventing us from recognising the regime in Benghazi?

David Cameron: I thank my hon. Friend very much for his support. On the German attitude, to be fair to the German Chancellor, whom I spoke to last night, she has been consistently sceptical about this issue. I do not believe that Germany will in any way be destructive within NATO, because it recognises that the UN has voted for this resolution, on which the Germans, of course, abstained. It is for them to explain their scepticism. Of course arguments can always be made about, “If we are acting here, why not elsewhere?” But as I have said, in this instance the case for action and the world coming together is very strong.

Joan Ruddock: May I also congratulate the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary on the action they have taken? I hope the Prime Minister will join me in also congratulating President Obama, who by his cautious deliberations has allowed the Arab states to come to the fore, and, unlike his predecessor, has shown proper respect for the United Nations, thus giving a major boost to the rule of international law.

David Cameron: The right hon. Lady makes an extremely good point and is absolutely right. I had a very good conversation with President Obama last night, and I think he has shown great leadership on the UN and what is proposed in the new resolution, and on being able to bring together its various elements. The right hon. Lady is right that allowing the Arab League the space and time to come forward and make its own views clear has helped to create a sense of consensus at the UN, where we have the ability to act. But the clock is now ticking, and we now need a sense of urgency,
	because we do not want to see a bloodbath in Benghazi, and further repression and taking of innocent civilian life in Libya.

Bernard Jenkin: I join my right hon. and hon. Friends in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on his brilliant success at the United Nations, which is a vindication of the credibility of British foreign policy. Can he say more about the strategic objective, which, as Lord Dannatt and others have clearly stated, must be extremely clear? My right hon. Friend is committed to regime change, but are our allies, and in particular President Obama, committed to regime change?

David Cameron: The answer I give my hon. Friend is that almost every leader in the free world has said Gaddafi needs to go—that his regime is illegitimate and there is no future for Libya with him in charge—but we must be clear about the aim of what we are now involved in. The aim is to put in place the UN Security Council resolution, which is about protecting people’s lives and about the steps we are prepared to take to isolate the regime and give that country the chance of a better future. We must restrict ourselves to that aim in meeting this UN Security Council resolution. Obviously, we have a desire, which I and others have expressed, that Gaddafi has no future, but our aim here must be clear, and that is how we must drive this alliance forward.

Tom Watson: Now that the UN has reasserted its authority with this resolution, it is important that Gaddafi is in no doubt that there is an overwhelming military force to carry it out. In that light, how many countries does the Prime Minister wish to provide military assets, and how many of them come from the Arab League?

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Obviously, we want the widest alliance possible. I do not think it would be right for me to name at the Dispatch Box those countries that are considering participation, but there is a wide number. Clearly, at the heart of this are the Americans, the French and the British, but other European countries are coming forward, and there are also some in the Arab League, including a number I have spoken to, who have talked about active participation—about playing a part in this. One of the purposes of the meeting tomorrow in Paris will be to bring together the widest possible coalition of those who want to support it, and I believe, particularly as this has such strong UN backing, that it will be a very wide coalition indeed.

Bob Stewart: Speaking as someone who has watched well-armed Bosnian Serb units smash through civilian populations, may I ask my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister whether Security Council resolution 1973 allows us, under its provision on “all necessary measures”, to avoid the arms embargo and directly arm the people who are fighting against Gaddafi in Benghazi and elsewhere?

David Cameron: The first point I would make to my hon. Friend is how welcome it was that Bosnia was sitting on the Security Council and able to vote in favour of this resolution—for good historical reasons.
	The resolution helps to enforce the arms embargo, and our legal understanding is that that arms embargo applies to the whole of Libya. Paragraph 4 authorises member states
	“to take all necessary measures…to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack”
	in Libya, including Benghazi. That is very strong language, which allows states to take a number of military steps to protect people and harm those who are intending to damage civilians. It could not be clearer, and the legal advice is clear.
	Let me make this point as well: while I think we should maintain the convention that the Government are entitled to have legal advice and to receive that legal advice privately, I also think it is right on these sorts of occasions that a summary of legal advice should be published so the House of Commons can see and debate it, and we will make sure that is done well in advance of the debate on Monday.

David Lammy: Given that the Gaddafi forces are advancing, what assessment has the Prime Minister made of civilian casualties and what discussions has he had on any post-conflict reconstruction, learning the lessons of Iraq?

David Cameron: The right hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point. It is clear that there have been widespread civilian casualties, and I quoted some figures in my statement. It is also clear that if Gaddafi goes into Benghazi the situation could get radically worse, which is why, as I have said, the clock is ticking—the time for action is now. In terms of reconstruction and humanitarian aid, my right hon. Friend the International Development Secretary will be leading a cross-government group to make sure we do everything we can to bring all our resources to bear—we have considerable resources in this area—working with others to make sure that we get humanitarian aid to every part of that country and that we plan for the future.

Tony Baldry: One of the factors that caused Gaddafi to abandon his programme of weapons of mass destruction in the 1990s was that he knew he was on the verge of being indicted for war crimes by the UN Special Court for Sierra Leone, so he well understands both the power and the reach of international criminal law. Will my right hon. Friend try to ensure that the International Criminal Court makes it very clear that it is not only Gaddafi who stands at risk of being indicted by the ICC, but all those around him who are most responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point, and we are making sure not only that Gaddafi and his immediate colleagues know they are in danger of going in front of the ICC, but that all those who choose to back the regime and carry out war crimes know that they are also in that danger. In addition, anyone who thinks of being a mercenary, of organising mercenaries or of organising arms shipments to that regime are covered in the same way. Communicating that message in all the ways that we can is vitally important work.

John McDonnell: I support the freedom struggle of the Libyan people and I am a supporter of the United Nations, but I have grave concerns about the use of force by western powers in this region, and both the short-term and long-term consequences. It therefore behoves us to ask the question: what next? In the short-term, in the interests of conflict resolution, is there to be a final offer from the United Nations to Gaddafi for peace talks? If armed conflict goes ahead, what measures are being put in place to ensure the safety of civilians? In particular, may I urge the Prime Minister that there should be no use of depleted uranium weapons, which have damaged the long-term safety of the civilians in Iraq? Given the change of regimes that has taken place in this region, given what is happening in Bahrain and given the continued oppression of the Palestinian people, may I urge him to go to the United Nations and say that now is the opportune time to re-establish a middle eastern conference that looks at the long-term security and peace of this region?

David Cameron: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. What the UN is suggesting is very clear. Paragraph 1
	“Demands the immediate establishment of a cease-fire and a complete end to violence and all attacks against, and abuses of, civilians”.
	Paragraph 2
	“Stresses the need to intensify efforts to find a solution to the crisis which responds to the legitimate demands of the Libyan people”.
	The point that I would make to the hon. Gentleman is this: if we make this statement and give this ultimatum, and in a way, the UN has given this ultimatum; if Gaddafi does not respond and goes on brutalising his people; and if in those circumstances we say that we are not prepared to use force to protect civilians, with all the backing of the UN, with all the backing of international law, with the Arab League behind us and with the world saying that this is right—if not then, when?
	The hon. Gentleman does need to think about this, because although there should, of course, be all sorts of things holding you back before you take action, and there are all the questions you should ask, when there is this degree of international backing, and if Gaddafi will not stop the brutalising of civilians, there is a complete legitimisation of taking action to protect those civilians.

Angie Bray: May I, too, congratulate the Prime Minister on his spectacularly successful leadership and the amazing turnaround that he has achieved? Will he tell the House a little more about the discussions he is having with members of the Arab League about the role that they may be able to play in supporting this resolution?

David Cameron: The encouraging thing is, first, that the Arab League came forward so clearly and asked for a no-fly zone. The contact I had, including on my trip to the Gulf, was that so many were so clear that Gaddafi was illegitimate and that what he was doing was wrong. There was a genuine sense of outrage at what he was doing. The key now is to try to encourage the Arab League and its members, and not just in those
	words and great sentiments: we need to encourage them to participate actively, so that the world can see that if action is necessary, there are Arab planes alongside French, British or American planes taking part in the action to protect civilians in Libya. That is extremely important and we should do everything we can to secure it.

Richard Burden: I welcome last night’s UN resolution; this is not Iraq, but it is an important test of the international community’s willingness to protect civilians from the immediate danger of slaughter. Given the importance of keeping the Arab world on board in this endeavour, will the Prime Minister tell the House a bit more about his objectives for tomorrow’s meeting in Paris?

David Cameron: The first objective of tomorrow’s meeting in Paris is to bring together in person those Arab leaders that President Sarkozy, President Obama and I have been speaking to in recent days so that we can discuss the importance of having the widest possible alliance to prosecute the implementation of this UN Security Council resolution. That is the most important thing. Even before then, a range of planning activity and, as I said in my statement, logistics activity needs to take place. We must quicken the contacts we have with all those Arab countries, but I hope that tomorrow we will see a visible demonstration of the world coming together to say, “This man must stop what he is doing and if he doesn’t, there will be very severe consequences.”

Tom Brake: The Prime Minister has made a credible and convincing case for joint action to protect Libyan civilians whose lives are threatened by Gaddafi, a despot with a record of international terrorism and internal terror. However, there is a significant risk of stalemate if a no-fly zone can be established in time and Gaddafi’s air force and helicopters are grounded. Can the Prime Minister say which organisations or nations have indicated that they would be willing to play a part in breaking such a stalemate if indeed it arises?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Of course there is a danger of stalemate, as he says. At that point there could be a role for organisations such as the African Union to try to bring this situation to a close, but as we stand today Colonel Gaddafi has not ceased his attacks on Benghazi or on people in Libya. That provides the urgency for this resolution, the action that we are preparing to take and the ultimatum that we will give. Of course, if he accedes, there could be a role for the African Union and for others.

Heidi Alexander: The Prime Minister talks about the need to think about the consequences of our action or inaction. One possible consequence is that Gaddafi is left weakened and alienated but not defeated. What consideration has been given to that scenario and, in particular, the implications for security and stability in the region and more widely?

David Cameron: The hon. Lady makes a very good point, and we have to consider all of these issues. The point I would make is that the reason why Gaddafi is weakened and insecure is because his people rose up
	and said that they wanted no more of him and that they wanted to have a more open and democratic future. I believe that in response to that we have been right, and others have been right, to encourage the Arab world and the north African world to move in a more democratic direction. She is absolutely right to say that from a national security perspective we have to consider all the implications of what is happening in Libya. The Home Secretary will be looking at the consequences for migration and we need to look at the consequences in terms of security policy too. The hon. Lady is entirely right in that view.

Mark Field: Although today’s statement has understandably focused on military and diplomatic issues, a huge humanitarian crisis is already taking place, with a large number of Libyans having already fled and crossed the Mediterranean to Malta, Italy and other places. I was very encouraged by what the Prime Minister had to say about the role of the Department for International Development. Would he recognise that many of us in this House and countless millions of our constituents are equally proud of the very strong soft power that our nation is able to utilise and which we hope it will utilise in these difficult weeks and months ahead?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point, and I will stress again what the International Development Secretary will be doing. Obviously, he will be looking at what has been happening on Libya’s borders—we have discussed that before—but he will also be looking at the issues within Libya itself. There is no doubt in my mind that in this situation soft power has had an enormous effect on giving people a sense that a better future is available to them and that they do not have to put up with the regimes that they have had to put up with for so long. Despite the fact that there may be difficult days ahead, as we grapple with implementing this UN Security Council resolution, we should lift our heads up and believe that there is a more hopeful future for this region and, therefore, for our world.

Chris Bryant: I am sure that the whole House will wish the Prime Minister well as he discharges his duties in relation to Libya over the coming days, because he will face many much more complex decisions than those he has already had to take and they will affect life and death in Libya. We all want to see Gaddafi gone and we want to see everybody in Benghazi protected, but is the Prime Minister anxious about Russia’s abstention? Will he make sure that cluster munitions, which are banned for British troops, will also be banned by all those others who are taking part in this, because in many cases it is the aftershock of cluster munitions that devastates the civilian population?

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about cluster munitions. We do not use those munitions and we do not believe that others should either.
	On the Russian abstention, and indeed the Chinese abstention, all I would observe is that this is, in many ways, quite a welcome step forward. We are talking here about a very tough resolution on what has happened in another country where people are being brutalised. In
	years gone by, we might have expected to see Security Council vetoes. The fact that we have not is a very positive step forward for international law, for international right, and for the future of our world.

William Cash: Time, of course, remains of the essence, and those who are resisting may well need arms rapidly. Paragraph 4 of the resolution, which my right hon. Friend did not mention, says
	“notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970”,
	and relates to the arms embargo. Does not that provide an avenue, through a committee of sanctions of the United Nations, to allow arms to be supplied, as sub-paragraph (c) of paragraph 9 appears to suggest, to those resisting Gaddafi in Benghazi and thereabouts?

David Cameron: I always worry when my hon. Friend mentions the word “notwithstanding”; a small chill goes up my spine. I think I am right in saying that the resolution is clear: there is an arms embargo, and that arms embargo has to be enforced across Libya. The legal advice that others have mentioned, and that we believe some other countries were interested in, suggesting that perhaps this applied only to the regime, is not in fact correct.

Nick Smith: In the next few difficult months, can we ensure, as well as we can, that we do not damage the Libyan water and energy infrastructure and thereby make things difficult for the wider Libyan population?

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, first, to say that in many ways the easy decisions have been made, and now there are the difficult times and the difficult decisions have to be made. I am acutely conscious of that. His point about Libyan resources is entirely right. If Gaddafi will not cease his war on his own people and if military action has to be taken, we need to make sure that that is done commensurate with international law and trying to avoid, wherever possible, collateral damage, civilian casualties, and all the other things that he says. That is absolutely vital in all that we want to do, not least in keeping the largest possible coalition of people in this country and around the world, including in the Arab world, behind what the United Nations has authorised.

Peter Bone: I would like to thank the Prime Minister for coming to the House so early to make this statement. He is clearly right to take very seriously the deployment of British troops. In that regard, could not the substantive motion that he has mentioned be debated later this evening or tomorrow morning, before the troops are actually deployed?

David Cameron: Obviously, I considered this carefully, and we discussed it at Cabinet this morning. We felt that the best approach was to give time for the tabling of a substantive motion today, which I believe has to be done by 2.30 pm. If we do that in advance, it will give anyone who wants to suggest an amendment the chance to do so, and then there can be a proper debate on Monday. Actually, I considered whether it
	would be better to hold the debate on Tuesday to give people more chance to consider what may or may not have happened over the weekend, but I think that the House will be anxious to have that debate, so I judged, and the Cabinet judged, that a debate on Monday on a substantive motion that can be amended is the right thing to do.

Mark Tami: What UN resolutions say and what they are subsequently interpreted to say can be very different. What assurances can the Prime Minister give to the House that it will be different this time, particularly bearing in mind the number of abstentions we had last night?

David Cameron: The point I would make to the hon. Gentleman is that this resolution seems to me to be extremely clear in that it has the call for a ceasefire, it has the no-fly zone, it has all necessary measures for a no-fly zone, it has the need to protect civilians, and all the necessary measures for civilians, alongside all the other issues about travel bans, asset seizures and the rest of it. It is a very clear resolution. As I say, I am very conscious that as we go ahead, we want to take people with us. That will inevitably be a difficult path, because every action has a consequence. However, I particularly welcome the fact that the resolution says so clearly that there must not be an occupying force. I think that sends such a clear signal to the Arab world, to the Muslim world, and to people in our own country, scarred by what has happened in the past, that that will not happen again. As I have said, there are some limits on us, but I think that in this circumstance, that is absolutely right.

David Nuttall: I thank my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for his statement. Recent history has shown that commencing military action such as this is rather like entering a maze—it is easier to get in than to get out. Given that the Libyan rebels will always be at risk for as long as Colonel Gaddafi is still in power, will not our involvement therefore have to continue while his regime remains in place?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. Of course, there is always a case that goes something like, “Don’t start down this path because it might involve you taking so many difficult steps to achieve it.” It seems to me that the stronger argument is that it is better to act than to stand back and do nothing, and witness the slaughter of civilians, when that is so clearly not in our national interest. It is better to act than to remain passive. We have set limits on what we are able to do, because we cannot have an occupying force. I believe that what we are doing can help to protect civilians and can, over time, help to bring about a better future for Libya.

Barry Gardiner: I welcome the UN resolution, but I oppose Britain’s military involvement in implementing it. The UN resolution is not to secure a no-fly zone for humanitarian protection, but an extraordinary authorisation of regime change. Unless the Prime Minister believes that Libya’s Arab and African neighbours lack the capacity or the compassion for their Libyan brothers and sisters to act independently, why does he insist on putting British military personnel at risk?

David Cameron: Obviously I respect the hon. Gentleman’s view, but it seems to me that if we will the end, we should also will the means to that end. We should never overestimate Britain’s size or capabilities, but neither should we underestimate them. We have one of the finest armed services in the world. We are one of the world’s leading military powers, and we also have huge strength in diplomacy, soft power and development. We should not play a disproportionate part, but I think that we should play a proportionate part alongside allies such as France, America and the Arab world. To say that we should pass such a resolution but then just stand back and hope that someone, somewhere in the Arab world will bring it about is profoundly wrong.

David Burrowes: I too commend the Prime Minister’s statement, and his courage and leadership. The Prime Minister will be aware of the significant position of Cyprus in the region, not least because of its sovereign bases. Does he anticipate the use of those bases in the implementation of the no-fly zone, and has that been agreed with the Government of Cyprus?

David Cameron: I do not want to go into too much detail about deployments. However, perhaps I could use this opportunity to make the point to those who have expressed concern about aircraft carriers that if we undergo operations in the southern Mediterranean to provide a no-fly zone and to carry out all necessary measures, the fact that there are so many friendly countries and members of NATO, such as France and Italy, means that there are plenty of opportunities for the basing of aircraft to ensure that we can deliver the effect that is needed.

David Simpson: I join colleagues in congratulating the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary on their success. I think that this is a tremendous outcome. Of course, those of us in Northern Ireland will shed no tears over Mr Gaddafi, especially given his role over the years in supplying weapons to butcher British citizens on the streets of Northern Ireland. Is the Prime Minister in a position to give us an update, as was mentioned earlier in the debate, on whether the Red Cross will be active on the ground?

David Cameron: First, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that people in Northern Ireland have every right to remember the hurt and pain that they were caused by Gaddafi’s funding of the IRA—a wrong that has still not been properly righted. On the issue of the Red Cross, I will ask the International Development Secretary to contact the hon. Gentleman separately to make clear the position.

Therese Coffey: I too congratulate the Prime Minister. Just yesterday, I voiced my concern that inertia could lead to our generation’s Rwanda. I am glad that he, along with others, has secured agreement to this resolution. I am sure that that was helped by the chilling words that Colonel Gaddafi issued in his radio interview. He has also mentioned attacks on civilian aircraft. Has the Security Council been able to assess that threat? Is it just the empty hot air of a tyrant who knows that his days in power are numbered?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is right to draw the House’s attention to what Gaddafi has said. He has said chilling words about what he plans to do to his own country and people, and he must be stopped. I too heard the reported remarks about civilian aircraft. Be in no doubt that, even aside from a UN Security Council resolution, every country has the right under international law to self-defence—a right that could be exercised in full.

Gerald Kaufman: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that the merit of the operation to liberate Kuwait in 1991 was that it was finite and established order, and that the disaster of the war in Iraq in 2003 was that after it was won, efforts were made by outsiders to install a Government, which resulted in chaos and terrorism? Will he assure the House that those lessons have been learned?

David Cameron: I absolutely give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance. It seems to me that we have to learn both the lessons of Iraq, by proceeding with the maximum Arab support and being very clear that there will be no army of occupation, and the lessons of Bosnia and not stand aside and witness a slaughter. It falls to Cabinets and Governments at this time, though, to recognise that no two situations are exactly alike. This is not Iraq; it is not Bosnia; it is not Lebanon; it is unique and different. We have to respond to it and use the right judgment to try to get our response correct. That is what this Government are determined to do, and as I have said, we are determined to take as many people with us as possible.

Nicholas Boles: May I thank the Prime Minister for his singular service over the past few weeks? Will he join me in paying tribute to those who will render an even greater service—the young men and women on whose skills, training and courage we will rely, as we have so often in our past?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to make that point. It is not the people who make the decisions who have the difficult choices and the difficult path ahead; it is those who have to carry out those decisions. We should be incredibly proud of our armed forces, of their professionalism, courage and dedication and of their ability to take on a task such as this and pursue it with such vigour. It is inspiring to see it happen. We should never take them for granted or ask them to do tasks that they cannot complete, but I have full confidence that they will perform magnificently, as they always do.

Sam Gyimah: May I add my voice to those of many other Members in congratulating the Prime Minister on what he has achieved, especially in the context of a coalition Government?
	Can the Prime Minister give the House a sense of how long he expects the military engagement that we are about to embark on to last?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend refers to the coalition Government, and let me put on record what strong support I and the Foreign Secretary have had from Members from right across the coalition and right across the House of Commons. Ministers from both parties have been involved in the lobbying effort with other countries, and they have done an extremely good job.
	I do not want to go into too much detail about what could happen if Gaddafi does not do what is set out in the UN Security Council resolution, but as I have said, it is important that action would follow relatively rapidly. Obviously we want to do what is necessary to ensure that the terms of it are met.

Stephen Phillips: May I echo the congratulations from throughout the House to my right hon. Friends for the courage that they have demonstrated during the past week?
	One difficulty that the last Administration had in relation to the war in Iraq was a general belief in the country that the war was not legal. I therefore welcome my right hon. Friend’s assurances that the legal advice will be published in summary. In order that there can be confidence across the country in the legality of the action that the Government are taking, that advice needs to be as full as possible. It also needs to deal with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). Can my right hon. Friend assure me that that will be the case, and that we will see the advice as soon as possible?

David Cameron: I can promise my hon. and learned Friend that he will see a summary position of the advice before the debate on Monday. I would say that, although I am never one to denigrate lawyers and their important work in any way, if he wants to see the legal basis, it is all there in the UN Security Council resolution. It is the strongest possible statement. I am glad to see the Attorney-General sitting next to me while I make those kind remarks about lawyers. I would very much recommend reading the resolution to see how strong the legal basis is.

Sajid Javid: May I thank the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary for showing world leadership in an hour of need? The biggest risk to our national security would have been to do nothing at all. We cannot risk the emergence of another failed state at our southern tip exporting terror and human misery. Now that the UN has agreed on action, will the Prime Minister ensure that the action is swift, powerful and precise, and will he involve the broadest coalition possible, especially our Arab allies?

David Cameron: We should do everything that is necessary to bring about the UN Security Council resolution’s conclusions. That is what our aim should be and is what should guide us, and everything we do should be proportionate to that. I say to my hon. Friend that yes, we have made a choice, and it is a choice to play our part in joint international action to enforce international law, to uphold the will of the UN Security Council and to respond to the calls from Arab countries and the Arab League, and also to do the right thing for the people of Libya, who want greater freedoms, and above all, I think, for the UK’s national interest as well.

Philip Hollobone: One of the difficult things about no-fly zones is setting them up in the first place by taking out the air defence assets of the country involved, especially if they are deployed in
	areas of civilian population. What lessons have been learned from experience in Iraq and Bosnia about how best to do that?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Our military have been involved in several no-fly zones over many years, and considerable lessons have therefore been learned. I do not pretend for one minute that it is easy. Indeed, I have never said that a no-fly zone is either easy to establish or the whole answer to bringing the appalling conflict by Gaddafi against his people to an end. However, it is one element of what is necessary to turn the pressure up further, and say that what we are seeing is simply not right.

Mark Reckless: The Prime Minister has informed the House that we are preparing to deploy Tornadoes and Typhoons to relevant air bases. Would it assist if HMS Ark Royal was also deployed in the Mediterranean with a Harrier strike force? Will he bolster our position by reconsidering the decision to decommission those forces before it is too late?

David Cameron: It is not necessary, to carry out the operations that we are considering, to have an aircraft carrier. Indeed, other counties have not moved aircraft carriers to the area and the reason is in an answer I gave earlier. In that part of the world in particular, several bases are available to provide the basing to carry out the required operations. It is extremely important to bear that in mind.

Rehman Chishti: I congratulate the Prime Minister on obtaining the international, legal humanitarian intervention in Libya. May I ask him to clarify the position? Will we join France in recognising the rebels as the alternative Government?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend asks a good question. As he knows, in this country, we recognise countries rather than Governments. What matters is making contact and having communications with the transitional authorities, and speaking to and building a relationship with them. That is the right way to proceed.

Greg Hands: May I, too, congratulate the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary on leading international opinion on the matter? I also welcome my right hon. Friend’s comments that we do not intervene unless in exceptional circumstances. That is an excellent contrast with the position on Iraq in 2003. This time, we have a positive legal opinion from the Attorney-General and the whole thing has been properly signed off by the United Nations.

David Cameron: I just wanted to ensure in the Cabinet meeting this morning that members could read the UN Security Council resolution, the Attorney-General’s legal advice and a draft of my statement. There will be difficult days ahead—these things never go entirely according to plan. There are always problems down the road. It is therefore important that the Cabinet makes a decision, drives it through and does what is necessary to achieve the goal that the whole House supports: the enforcement of the UN Security Council resolution, which will make our world a safer place.

Business of the House

George Young: With permission, I should like to make a short statement following on from the announcement that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has just made.
	The business for the week commencing 21 March will now be:
	Monday 21 March—Motion relating to the United Nations Security Council resolution on Libya, followed by motion relating to Members’ salaries.
	Tuesday 22 March—Remaining stages of the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Bill [Lords].
	Wednesday 23 March—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget statement.
	Thursday 24 March—Continuation of the Budget debate.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 28 March will remain the same.

Hilary Benn: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for his statement. The House should have an opportunity to debate the resolution that the United Nations passed yesterday evening and above all, its consequences for the people of Libya and, in particular, for the deployment of British forces. I also welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement that there will be a substantive motion before the House on Monday and the fact that it will be available later today. It is right that the House should have the chance to debate and vote, as was the case eight years ago today and in 1991, a few days after action began in the Gulf war. Will the Leader of the House assure us—I am sure that it will be the case—that the House will be kept informed of developments, with statements, as appropriate, from the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence?

George Young: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his support for the revised timetable. We plan to table a substantive motion later today that the House will debate on Monday, and to keep the House informed. We had a full day’s debate in Government time yesterday, a substantive statement from the Prime Minister today, and we will have a debate on Monday. I can give the right hon. Gentleman the undertaking he has just sought.

Nicholas Soames: I welcome Monday’s debate. Will my right hon. Friend be able to see his way in weeks to come to organising another debate on the middle east in view of the great interest in yesterday’s middle east debate in the House, and of the fact that events are fast moving, complex and complicated, and that they engage profoundly British interests in many countries other than Libya?

George Young: I think my hon. Friend recognises that we have a good record of keeping the House informed on matters concerning Afghanistan and Iraq, and indeed the middle east and north Africa. I can give him the undertaking that he has just sought. We will keep the House regularly informed, and I hope there will be opportunities to debate the matter again.

Jeremy Corbyn: I welcome the opportunity for the debate and the Leader of the House’s commitment to keeping the House regularly informed. That is most welcome—that is what Parliament is for. However, will he assure me that Members will have a facility to table amendments to the motion that is to be tabled later today? Clearly, if the motion is not tabled until, say, 2.30 today, it will be difficult to table an amendment. We will want an opportunity to debate amendments on Monday morning, so will he accept late amendments, and will they be acceptable?

George Young: Whether amendments are acceptable is a matter for you, Mr Speaker, rather than for me. The motion will be like any other substantive motion and will be subject to amendments. I take the hon. Gentleman’s point, and we will seek to table the motion in good time so that those who wish to table amendments will have the opportunity so to do.

Bernard Jenkin: Although it is entirely desirable for the House to express its clear opinion before any military action is taken, will the Leader of the House make it clear that the Government do not consider themselves restrained from taking military action before the motion is carried if it is necessary to do so?

George Young: Yes, that is indeed the position. If my hon. Friend looks at the statement that I made—I think—on 10 March, he will see that it refers to emergency action that might be necessary.

Chris Bryant: I agree with the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin). Having taken the temperature of the House today, it is clear that the Government have more or less the assent that they would broadly need.
	It is unusual for us to discuss matters of great import on a Friday morning. We tend to have lengthy, protracted—sometimes deliberately so—debates on private Members’ Bills. Hon. Members have private Members’ Bills tabled for debate on 27 days over the next few months when the House does not intend to sit, 19 of those Bills come from one individual Member, and because of the two-year Session, the last day on which the Government have thus far announced Friday sittings is 17 June. When will the Leader of the House give us the next dates, or preferably change the whole system?

George Young: I anticipate a written ministerial statement before the Easter recess outlining the Fridays on which the House will sit beyond those we have already identified.

William Cash: In the light of the earlier exchanges with the Prime Minister, when I asked about the arms embargo and the “notwithstanding” provision of the UN Security Council, will the Leader of the House be kind enough to refer the matter to the Attorney-General, so it can be addressed when the summary of the advice comes out?

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) is an extremely experienced Member of the House, having entered in 1984. These substantive matters can, should and will be debated on Monday. This is a narrow business statement.

George Young: Notwithstanding that, Mr Speaker, I will refer my hon. Friend’s comments to the Attorney-General.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: We welcome the opportunity to debate Libya. The Prime Minister mentioned that the position of British citizens affected in the past by Libyan-sponsored terrorism has not yet been settled. Will the Leader of the House allow time for a debate on that subject?

George Young: It might be appropriate to raise that matter in the debate on Monday; it seems wholly relevant. The right hon. Gentleman may have heard the reply that my right hon. Friend gave, I think, at Prime Minister’s questions last week on the issue of compensation. The Ministry of Justice is considering the matter and hopes to come to a decision very soon.

Peter Bone: Although I would have liked the debate to take place tomorrow, given that it will now be on Monday may I ask why we are having any other business on Monday? The debate on Members’ salaries, which now seems completely irrelevant, should be removed, and we should have the maximum amount of time to discuss this very important issue.

George Young: I can assure my hon. Friend that the debate I have just announced will carry on until 10 o’clock, and the motion on Members’ salaries, which is protected business for 90 minutes, will happen after that.

Tom Brake: I thank the Leader of the House for keeping Members informed about the Libyan situation. Is he aware of any other mechanisms that could be used to keep Members informed, for instance over the critical next 48 hours, because there could be developments and by the time of the debate on Monday much action might already have been taken?

George Young: The House will not be sitting for the next 48 hours, but there are other ways for Ministers to communicate with Members and the public, and I am sure that those avenues will be used if and when necessary.

Philip Hollobone: I congratulate the Leader of the House and the Government on how they have, through the House, handled the Libyan issue since it started. We have had regular statements, yesterday’s debate, the Prime Minister’s statement today and now the undertaking for a substantive motion on Monday. The Government deserve 10 out of 10 for how they have approached the House of Commons on this issue. However, although the House always benefits from wise counsel, through the good offices of the Leader of the House and you, Mr Speaker, can the House be assured that Monday’s debate will not be dominated by the usual
	suspects, and that many new Members will have a chance to participate, with an appropriate time limit being applied?

George Young: Mr Speaker, you will have heard what I suspect was a concealed bid to be selected to speak on Monday. The matter is entirely in your hands and happily has nothing to do with the Leader of the House.

Mr Speaker: I have of course heard what the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) has said, as I always do, and will study it carefully, as he would expect.

Therese Coffey: Will the Leader of the House not close the debate at 10 o’clock on Monday? This will be one of the most important debates in which I, as a Member of Parliament, could participate, and it is important that, although you, Mr Speaker, may impose a time limit, no Member lack the opportunity to participate in the debate.

George Young: I hear what my hon. Friend says. I would say, however, that we had a whole day’s debate yesterday on Libya and north Africa, and it might well be that Monday is not the last time that we debate these matters. However, I believe that a full day’s debate on Monday is the appropriate decision for the time being.

John McDonnell: I want to follow up the comments made by the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames). Things will move fast. We are entering serious and dangerous waters, and the Leader of the House should not hesitate to seek to recall the House either at weekends or during the recess so that we can debate the matter in detail.

George Young: The hon. Gentleman is right that there are opportunities for the House to be recalled. A Minister of the Crown can make a request to you, Mr Speaker. That has been done in the past, and will be done in the future as and when necessary.

Dan Byles: I urge the Leader of the House to reconsider his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey). Yesterday’s debate was not a debate about potentially committing British soldiers to military action, but the debate on Monday will be. I would say that they are substantively different, and I urge him to reconsider her request.

George Young: I hear what my hon. Friend says. I think I am right in saying that the debate on Iraq seven years ago was a one-day debate that ended at the normal time. However, there might be other opportunities to debate the matter later.

United Kingdom Parliamentary Sovereignty Bill

Proceedings resumed .

William Cash: Having had that ample demonstration of the sovereignty of the United Kingdom—the Prime Minister deserves our congratulations on that statement, given the opposition from within the European Union, for example—I can now resume the previous debate.
	As I said, I want to cover a number of practical examples. It would be fair to say that 60% or 70% of all our legislation now comes from the European Union. When Members are debating Bills, there is frequently—almost invariably—no way for them to know whether the legislation emanates from EU law. When I was a member of the Statutory Instruments Committee many years ago, I managed to instigate a system to ensure that legislation emanating from the European Union was denoted by an asterisk to show where it came from. It would be extremely helpful for MPs to have that included in all Bills—for convenience, perhaps it could be in the explanatory notes—because if we are not entitled to legislate inconsistently with European law, MPs should know that. As for the proposals in this Bill and the clause that I suggested might be added to it—we come back to the “notwithstanding” formula, which has been brought up about half a dozen times in the last hour and a half—it is important that people should know the extent to which we are trammelled in our legislation. Indeed, many Acts of Parliament would be better understood by the public at large if they knew where the obligations came from.
	That is one practical point. The other practical questions relate to the diversity, magnitude and volume of such legislation. We hear a great deal about better deregulation and attempts within the European Union to regulate better, but the statistics are incredibly bad. There is virtually no deregulation going on in the European Union, despite the fact that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has placed a great deal of faith in renegotiating legislation, some of which has a very damaging effect on our potential for growth. In fact, I have recently quoted Lord Mandelson, who said when he was Trade Commissioner that over-regulation from the European Union amounts to 4% of GDP, and Mr Verheugen has demonstrated that over-regulation costs many billions of pounds. The most recent calculation I have seen is that since 1999 European over-regulation has cost the British economy and British business alone £124 billion. This is absolute madness. We are talking about over-regulation and unnecessary regulation, the manner in which it is passed and whether, on the basis of what the Government say—I would be fascinated to know how the Minister will respond to this—there is any intention whatever of following the precept that the Prime Minister—[ Interruption. ] If I can detach the Minister from his colleague, I would like to draw his attention to a point to which I would like him to respond. [ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. It is courteous for Members on the Treasury Bench to pay attention. The hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) is referring directly to Ministers, so it would be a courtesy if they were listening.

William Cash: I am referring directly to the Minister to ask whether he will respond to a specific point made by the Prime Minister when he was Leader of the Opposition, in a speech to the Centre for Policy Studies in 2005 on the repatriation of powers. He stated that it was imperative to ensure British competitiveness by repatriating social and employment legislation. That has now apparently been directly contradicted by his boss, the Deputy Prime Minister, who has said that we will not take any so-called backward steps by repatriating powers. The measures involved include the working time directive and other matters that are absolutely essential to the growth that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be addressing next week in the Budget.
	I know that the Minister has a job to do, and I have no doubt that there are moments when that is somewhat unpalatable, but the bottom line is that we are far more interested in the jobs of the British people than in whether a few lines in the coalition agreement override the commitment that was made not only in our manifesto but in statements by the then Leader of the Opposition that we would repatriate social and employment legislation. There is no getting round this, and I want an answer to my question. I am sure that the House does, too.

Mark Harper: I can give my hon. Friend that answer now. We did indeed put a number of proposals before the British people, and we did seek a mandate for them. It will not have escaped his notice, however, that we did not win the general election outright, and that we therefore formed a coalition—[ Interruption. ] He raises his eyebrows, but that is a fact. Earlier, he specifically said that we had sought a mandate for certain things. We did indeed seek such a mandate, but I must draw his attention to the fact that we did not get that mandate. The coalition then set out its policies very clearly in its programme for government.

William Cash: I hear what the Minister says, but I am afraid I remain unconvinced, not least because the first priority must be to ensure that we achieve growth. Reducing the deficit is supposed to be the fulcrum of the coalition Government’s proposals, but we cannot do that without increasing growth, and we cannot increase growth without reducing the burden of over-regulation, much of which comes from the European Union and has the effect of strangulating British business.
	This is not exactly rocket science; it is completely obvious. I understand the Government’s dilemma, but I am certain that, in the national interest, we need to tackle the problem. That is why the formula to which I have referred remains embedded in the Bill. I stress the necessity for Government policy to shift the burden on British business to give it the oxygen it needs. We cannot trade with the European Union when most of its member states, apart from Germany, are in a parlous state of low growth. Many of the countries are virtually bankrupt. It would be completely self-defeating to continue to make all these treaties and pacts on European economic governance and competitiveness in defiance of the fact that Europe is suffering from very low growth.
	We need to relieve the burden on small and medium-sized businesses in the United Kingdom and elsewhere in Europe to ensure that we can achieve the growth that we need. That is a perfectly reasonable proposition, and it should not get in the way of the overall objectives of the
	coalition. Unfortunately, however, it appears that it does, because the Government keep on saying that they will not repatriate these powers. I find it astonishing that we are working against the national interest in this way, rather than working for it. Statements by the Deputy Prime Minister in this context have been extremely unhelpful, but I gather that the Minister is going to associate himself with those remarks and not attempt to give any sustenance to those of us who want the repatriation of powers through this Bill.
	My arguments apply not only on the business front—[ Interruption. ] I see some hon. Members shaking their heads, but this country is in a parlous condition at the moment, and common sense ought to prevail. It is not asking a huge amount to ensure that we have a thriving business community. The situation would be emphatically improved if we were to adopt the policy that I am proposing, and have been proposing for many years. As I said before the interruption for the Prime Minister’s statement, that policy was formally agreed by us in the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill in 2006 when we were in opposition.

Mark Harper: I would like to ask my hon. Friend a question. He drew attention to the repatriation of powers and spoke of using the mechanisms of the Bill to achieve that. Although I do not agree with it, I could understand the argument that the Bill would stop us giving away more powers to the European Union, but what mechanism in it would enable us to get back powers that have already been given away?

William Cash: The use of the sovereignty of Parliament to pass an Act notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972, which is inherent in the Bill. The Minister might recall that in opening my remarks, I specifically stated that I had a clause in mind that would put it beyond any doubt that the courts would be obliged to give effect to, for example, what the then Opposition properly did when they voted for my amendment to the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill.
	We should not be arguing about this. I find it astonishing that I should have to raise the matter in a debate. For a Minister to question whether my remarks are valid in one respect or another is again astonishing. I cannot believe it: I know the Minister’s business background; I know he understands the issues; I know perfectly well that he is caught on the horns of a dilemma. I believe that he would personally love to see the repatriation of powers—and I am sure his constituents would, as well. I am afraid, however, that it will do no good if he offers resistance to my simple, straightforward and common-sense proposals. This involves making adjustments to European Community law and requiring the judiciary to give effect to the latest inconsistent Act. I should not have to repeat myself; it is terribly obvious. It is all so simple that I cannot believe that the Minister would want to offer any kind of resistance to the proposition.
	Let me provide a few examples—some from the business environment, some from elsewhere—from the massive tsunami of European law. I have already mentioned the working time directive, which is coming up for consideration by the European Scrutiny Committee. We recommended that proposals relating to it should be debated in the
	House, so we do not need to debate it immediately. I will say unequivocally, however, that the working time directive is causing a great deal of damage to small businesses. There are also questions in the pipeline relating to waste electrical and electronic equipment, which is a matter of concern to a number of manufacturers and to people in the waste disposal business.

Peter Bone: My hon. Friend is generous in giving way. Does he agree that one problem now is that we have lost so much time for debate as a result of the important statement on Libya? I, for one, will withdraw from speaking so that we can reach a conclusion and vote on the Bill. I know that other hon. Members want to speak, so I wonder whether my hon. Friend would reflect on that?

William Cash: Very much so. I am delighted to say that I have come to the end of my remarks, which were to include a reference to the European arrest warrant and powers of entry, as both those matters are causing problems for the citizens and people of this country. Fair Trials International has written an excellent brief on the necessary amendments, but as it knows all too well, only by using the sort of mechanism I have proposed—the “notwithstanding” formula—would we be able to deal with the problem. Further difficulties relate to rulings on pensions, the insurance question for women and so forth.
	In a nutshell, this is a problem crying out for a solution. This Bill will provide it. Other measures are necessary to ensure that we retain the sovereignty of this House while at the same time dealing with the difficulties arising for the people of this country in a wide area of business and other legislation.

Henry Smith: I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in such a fundamental debate. My comments will be brief, partly because although the matter is so fundamental it is also relatively straightforward.
	As I said in my intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), this country has an evolving constitution, as even a cursory look at the history books will show. Over the best part of the last millennium, the most significant action was perhaps the 1215 Magna Carta, the seed of many of our liberties and freedoms, as mentioned in other great documents such as the US constitution. We have also had two Acts of Union, the 1689 Bill of Rights referred to by my hon. Friend, and the Parliament Act of exactly a century ago, as amended in the late 1940s. Of course, we have also had the European Communities Act 1972, which was confirmed by a referendum in 1975. Most people who did not study the treaty of Rome to any great degree thought that that was a referendum on free markets and, as it was referred to at the time, a common market. Those who did study the treaty of Rome would have realised the inexorable trend in greater political union that was about to start.
	The European Communities Act was passed when I was just three years old, and of course I was still very young when the referendum took place. In the intervening four decades, the British people have not had a chance to express their views on the development of the European Union, which has grown hugely both in terms of member
	countries and competences. During the same period, this Parliament has on many occasions also failed to reassert its authority as an independent sovereign Parliament. I am sure in my view as a Member that this Parliament is sovereign in this country, but I fear that the elapsing of time and seeping of power and authority from this place to supranational organisations such as the European Union, the European Parliament, the European Commission, the European Court of Justice and other European institutions formed prior to 1972, such as the European Court of Human Rights, has led to serious questions about whether Parliament, and in particular the House of Commons, is sovereign in the governance of the United Kingdom.
	Although I, my hon. Friend and many other hon. Members, if not all, are sure of that sovereignty, increasingly there are attempts to challenge and qualify it by courts within the United Kingdom, as judges seek to legislate from the bench, and by courts outside this country. A reaffirmation of this place’s sovereignty is therefore timely, because we do not have a written constitution, or at least not one that is written down in any one place.
	Let us contrast that with other member nations of the European Union. The Federal Republic of Germany has its constitutional court, which is quite sure in its constitutional position that it is supreme when it comes to matters that affect that country. The debate about whether we write our constitution in one place is for another day, but nevertheless the time has now come, because of uncertainty and of challenges within and without this country, to reaffirm that sovereignty.
	I know that the arguments against such a position are that, if we start to enshrine “sovereignty” in law, we will just open up the debate to lawyers and judges to define exactly what we mean by it. I also understand the argument that “sovereignty”, on the few occasions it is mentioned in legislation, often refers to territorial limits rather than to any legal definition, but the Bill’s wording is quite clear that sovereignty refers to the competence of this Parliament—of the legislation that we enact. That defines the sovereignty that we should reassert, and it therefore closes down the argument that the Bill would somehow do the opposite and open up the debate about the future of sovereignty.
	Ideally, I would like to see a referendum on our future membership of the European Union, but, given the remarks that the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), made a few moments ago, I suspect that, because of the realities of the coalition Government, we will not see such a referendum in the lifetime of this Parliament.

Peter Bone: My hon. Friend could be more sanguine on the matter, because our coalition partners are desperate to have that vote. It was in their manifesto, so we just have to persuade our hon. Friend the Minister that it is necessary; we do not have to persuade our coalition partners.

Henry Smith: I am grateful for that clarification of the Liberal Democrat manifesto. Clearly, 12 months ago I should have read it with a little more care, but I was busy trying to promote my candidacy in what is now my constituency. I still suspect that, although the
	proposal might have appeared in the Liberal Democrats’ manifesto, they are less willing for it to be part of any coalition agreement.
	I therefore maintain that we are unlikely—if my political antennae are correct—to have a referendum, and that is even more reason why we in this Parliament now need to reaffirm and reassert, through an Act, that this Parliament is sovereign. The electorate will not have a chance to have their say, certainly during this Parliament.
	Ultimately, this is one of the most important debates that we can have in this place, because I am sent here to represent the interests of not only my constituents but my country, and I seek and am very proud to do those two things. I am deeply conscious, however, of the fact that my ability and that of right hon. and hon. Members to do so is frustrated by the constraints and—I will put it as strongly as this—the checks that are placed on this Parliament in enacting the legislation that we want to see.
	We have heard a number of examples, whether they be the European Court of Human Rights on prisoner voting or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) said earlier, our insurance industry’s inability to provide the products that the vast majority of people would consider perfectly rational. Those are just two recent examples, so I am very pleased to support the Bill and, as a new Member, very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch for introducing it today.

Priti Patel: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) on securing this important debate on issues about which many of us who are present today feel strongly. I agree with the powerful arguments that he advanced. The Bill is, of course, very similar to one of the same name that was presented some time ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash).
	I share the concerns that have been expressed this morning, because, like others who are in the Chamber today, I believe in the sovereignty and primacy of this Parliament. I believe that it is the mother of all Parliaments, and should be the ultimate institution of power and authority in our country. Throughout history, the laws passed by this Parliament have seen the country enjoy success and prosperity beyond that which could have been envisaged. It is testimony to the respect that people have for our Parliament that our democracy, institutions and laws have been exported across the world, not just to our former empire and colonies but, I believe, far beyond.
	This Parliament has an enviable record of delivering positive change and success, which is why I believe that we should never allow it to become irrelevant or allow its authority and power to fall into decline. However, even as a new Member of Parliament, I have already seen that happening. Unfortunately, in recent decades we have seen a continual undermining of the authority of this Parliament by the body that is called Europe, without the consent of the British people.
	My views on this matter are, I think, well known. The Bill returns us to many of the debates that we have had previously on, for instance, the European Union Bill and the Sovereignty of Parliament Bill. The issue is that
	our powers are being eroded, and that all too often decisions are made in secret and without the consultation or the consent of the British people whom those decisions ultimately affect. That causes tremendous concern to my constituents and to me. I believe that, in an era of openness, transparency and fairness, they should know what is going on and should be entitled to a say on it.
	There is a strong contrast between the approach that I have described and the domestic approach to constitutional matters when Parliament’s powers have been devolved. Across the United Kingdom, Parliament has devolved powers to other domestic institutions with the consent of the people, and has established a new constitutional settlement in an open, transparent and democratic way. Devolution from Westminster to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland has taken place by means of carefully considered legislation and referendums. We have seen that process in action with the Scotland Bill and the referendum that was conducted in Wales earlier this month.
	Whether or not we agree with those decisions on devolution, they have been made in a transparent and open way and they carry democratic legitimacy, which is important. Unfortunately, very little of the transfer of powers from the United Kingdom to Europe and the pillaging of those powers has ever been carried out in such a transparent, accountable and democratic fashion, and the Bill rightly seeks to redress that.
	I welcome this initiative because, like all Conservative Members of Parliament, I stood for election on a solid manifesto pledge to
	“introduce a United Kingdom Sovereignty Bill to make it clear that ultimate authority stays in this country, in our Parliament.”
	I welcomed the safeguards in the European Union Bill, which would, through a referendum, give Parliament and the British public greater control over transfers of power to Europe. The EU Bill is a step in the right direction, but, as has been said before in the House, the true test will come when it is challenged. As we heard earlier this morning, it has been reported that a Liberal Democrat Member of the European Parliament has proposed changes to bypass the referendum lock and what he has apparently referred to as “the British problem”. In a letter to the President of the European Parliament, he shamelessly neglected the British interest by suggesting that future treaty changes be ratified with a four-fifths majority of member states, and observed that the effect of this Bill
	“will be to severely delay and complicate all future treaty revision”.
	I know the British people will be as astonished as I am that any parliamentarian would stoop so low as to describe any democratic process involving a sovereign Parliament and referendum as a problem, and seek to circumvent the layer of democratic accountability for laws that affect our country. Standing up for British interests and the sovereignty of this Parliament must come first, and those who think that that causes delay and complication have no respect for democracy.
	Clause 1 adds additional safeguards to protect against those in Europe, such as Mr Duff, wishing to undermine our country. It makes it clear and unambiguous that Parliament is sovereign, and it provides a defence of the sovereignty of Parliament, complementing that in the
	European Union Bill. That is important because what irritates my constituents—and, it seems, the majority of the British public—is when laws from Europe are foisted on us and we as a country can do very little about it.
	That brings me on to the whole area of the repatriation of powers. While we cannot reverse Labour’s betrayal over the referendum on the Lisbon treaty, we can enforce more vigorous safeguards for parliamentary sovereignty. There are two areas in particular where I think the Bill offers an opportunity to strengthen our democracy and restore power and authority to Parliament. First, by reaffirming the sovereignty of Parliament, the Bill gives rise to the possibility that Britain might be able to repatriate powers from Europe. Secondly, the Bill gives us an opportunity to deal with problems from Europe in respect of the Council of Europe, the European Court of Human Rights and their associated Strasbourg-based institutions. I have no doubt that those Members who are present could speak for hours about the powers we would like to have repatriated, and about those institutions and their detrimental impact on our laws, our legislation and our country.
	On the repatriation of powers, I believe it is absolutely essential that Parliament can clearly and decisively legislate to disapply EU laws imposed on this country where they are not in the national interest. Over the next few years, British taxpayers will be handing over to the EU £50 billion more than they get back, and we face additional costs of over £20 billion stemming from the more than 80 EU directives currently pending transposition into UK law. Therefore, from a financial perspective alone, we simply cannot afford to go on like this, let alone in the areas where the EU is now exercising far too many controls over our lives, such as financial institutions and immigration policies.

Peter Bone: My hon. Friend is, as always, making a powerful speech. Is it not strange that under the last five years of the Labour Administration, £19.8 billion net was given to the EU, but under this coalition Government the amount for the next five years will go up to £41 billion? Who would have believed that?

Priti Patel: I find that alarming, and I do not think it is financially sustainable. It returns us to the point about accountability and transparency. Hard-pressed taxpayers in our country want to know where this money is going, and how it is going to be spent.
	While I would like a proactive strategy to be adopted to secure, with European agreement, the return of powers to Britain and money to British taxpayers, it is important that we have a clear legislative framework in place to ensure that we can act in this way and put Britain’s interests first. I am eager that, as result of this Bill, we should have the chance to repatriate powers, because my constituents are fed up with the unelected, unaccountable and undemocratic bureaucrats in Brussels thinking they know best and imposing laws on our country. That is simply wrong. Frankly, the way Europe acts, and the increasingly integrationist and federalist agenda it pursues, only serves to give the impression that the EU does not trust us to make our own laws and has complete contempt and disregard for the British public.
	Whatever the motives in Europe are for taking powers from Britain, we have been making laws in this country from this Parliament for many centuries. We can take
	great pride in the laws that this Parliament has passed and we must ensure that it can continue to make laws, without restriction, diktat or command from Europe. Reaffirming the sovereignty of Parliament gives me hope that, if needed, Parliament can legislate to repatriate powers without the courts ruling such measures incompatible with European law—of course we hear far too much of the term “European law” in this House. I look to this Bill, either in its current form or in an amended form, to facilitate that.
	Time is short, but I wish to touch on a couple of other areas where the Bill can play an important role in securing British interests, the first is which is in respect of the Council of Europe and the European Court of Human Rights. We have seen how those bodies have sought to undermine and block the will of Parliament over prisoner votes. I look to clause 2(a), on Ministers of the Crown being unable to implement any legal instrument inconsistent with the Bill without approval from a referendum, as a starting point to safeguarding the will of Parliament. After all, with this Bill reaffirming the sovereignty of Parliament, Ministers would not be able to claim that they have to change our laws because Europe told us to do so.
	This is not just about prisoner votes; it is about many areas, including finance, insurance policies—we know how they are going to change—and immigration policy. Intervention, diktats and changes in language are ever increasing and this is an alarming trend. The Council of Europe and the Human Rights Commissioner are critical of countries that wish to take a tough stand on immigration. It is of course in our national interest to secure our borders and make sure that we do not have illegal immigration, but we hear endless proclaimers attacking member states about the language used on immigration. We are attacked for the steps we take to patrol our borders and deter the entry of migrants who should not be coming into our country and are trying to do so for all the wrong reasons. I could go on about many of these points, but I will draw my remarks to a conclusion.
	I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to this debate but, more importantly and fundamentally, I seek assurances that the Government will act to ensure the protection of parliamentary sovereignty. I want to hear that the future British laws are going to be made by people in Britain and in the interests of British people.

Chris Bryant: Briefly, this Bill is a melancholic throat-clearing exercise inspired by a choleric attitude towards Europe. I am sanguine that the Government will be phlegmatic, so for all the reasons I have adumbrated in every other debate on the European Union since I was first elected in 2001, I oppose.

Mark Harper: I do not think I will quite match the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) for brevity. He will be pleased to learn that I am not going to go through all the reasons why the Government oppose the Bill and will oppose it if it is pressed to a vote, but I will touch on a number of them. My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) got to the heart of the argument at the beginning of the
	debate when he discussed clause 1 and its reaffirmation of sovereignty. As he said, if this is indeed a sovereign Parliament, as we all believe it is, it does not need to reaffirm its sovereignty, but if it is not a sovereign Parliament, reaffirming its sovereignty is of no consequence.
	My hon. Friend also made the point—I have been surprised that other Members have not discussed this—that this is not a Bill about the European Union. As clause 3(b) makes clear, it touches on not only our European commitments, but all the commitments we have made in all the treaties we have signed. I shall go on to discuss what the Prime Minister said earlier about our membership of the United Nations, which would be affected if the Bill became law.

Henry Smith: My hon. Friend is of course right that this country is a member of a number of international bodies, including the European Union, the United Nations and NATO, but so are other independent sovereign nations. I do not think there would be any suggestion that the United States compromises its sovereignty by its membership of the United Nations.

Mark Harper: I will not dwell on that now, if my hon. Friend will forgive me. I will come to it later in my remarks, and he will be free to intervene on me then.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) and several others touched on issues such as the European Union Bill, particularly the debate that we had on clause 18; the issue of prisoner voting, which my hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) mentioned; and our relationship with the European convention on human rights, including the role of the Court. Those are all important.
	There is no doubt that the sovereignty of Parliament lies at the heart of our constitution as one of our fundamental underpinnings. Since the time of the Bill of Rights in 1689, no one has seriously challenged the notion that Parliament is the ultimate arbiter of the powers of the Executive. Indeed, Parliament determined who the Executive should be: it intervened in the line of succession to the Crown and altered it. I will not go into the various changes to the line of succession, as my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) dwelled on that. I was disappointed that he did not feel the urge to set out his views on those historical events in more detail, and probably on a much better informed basis, than I would be able to.
	It may be surprising to some that the adoption of parliamentary sovereignty is nowhere set out in authoritative form. The Bill sets out sovereignty without attempting to define it in any way in a piece of primary legislation. That would mean, in effect, that the courts would then be invited to define what we meant by sovereignty, to define what “reaffirming” meant, and to do a number of other things. The Bill would therefore take us down a dangerous road that would undermine the proposition of parliamentary sovereignty instead of defending it.

William Cash: I merely add that the most distinguished authority on the question of parliamentary sovereignty, Professor Jeffrey Goldsworthy, has indicated that clause 1 is the best way to deal with the situation with which we are faced. I have no idea where the legal advice that the Minister is getting comes from. If his advice comes from the same source as that of those who wrote the
	explanatory notes for the European Union Bill, the fact they have had to go into a steep reverse on this issue as a result of our Committee’s report indicates that the quality of the advice is appalling, and, I am glad to say, that the Minister’s comments are unnecessary and wrong.

Mark Harper: My remarks are clearly not unnecessary, because it is necessary to set out the Government’s view. I suspect that my hon. Friend and I will not see eye to eye on everything; indeed, on quite a lot, particularly regarding these issues. Of course, he is entitled to his view, but I happen to disagree with him.
	It is worth saying that in the debate in Committee of the whole House on clause 18 of the European Union Bill—my hon. Friend has referred to the evidence given in the European Scrutiny Committee, which he chairs—it was specifically made clear that it was not intended to be a general clause setting out the origin of parliamentary sovereignty; rather, it sets out how EU law gets its place in the UK legal order, which is by Acts of this Parliament. That was the purpose of the clause, and it did it very well. The EU Bill makes it very clear that directly applicable or directly effective EU law had status in the UK only because it was granted that status by an Act of the UK Parliament. I think that that was a helpful thing to do. As the hon. Member for Rhondda pointed out, that was agreed to by this House. Those arguments will be had at the other end of the building, and I hope that in due course that Bill will be passed by this sovereign Parliament.

William Cash: The fact that the Government have changed the explanatory notes is self-evident. Will the Minister put it on the record that he at least agrees that they were changed, even if he is not prepared to make any other admission?

Mark Harper: I believe that my hon. Friend is correct in saying that the explanatory notes have changed, so I am of course happy to agree on that fact. There are still matters of debate, but you will be pleased to know that I will not repeat those, Mr Deputy Speaker, because this is not a debate on the European Union Bill. I want to touch on issues other than the European Union because the Bill before us goes much wider, and there are other reasons why it should be opposed by Members.

Peter Bone: May I ask the Conservative Minister whether he stood on a manifesto at the last election that pledged that a United Kingdom parliamentary sovereignty Bill would be introduced if he was a member of the next Government? Has he changed his position?

Mark Harper: I dealt with that point when I intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash). Conservative Members stood on a manifesto that made a number of commitments. Indeed, he put it quite well in saying that we sought from the British people a mandate to do certain things. As I pointed out to my hon. Friends, much to our disappointment we did not get that mandate from the British people to the extent that we had hoped. We fell short, and that is why we formed a coalition Government. The coalition Government have set out our agreed programme. It contains quite a lot of what we wanted to do in our manifesto, and some
	of what the Liberal Democrats wanted to do in theirs, but we were not able to agree on all of it. The British people failed to give us that mandate so we are not able to do everything that we set out in our manifesto. That is disappointing—I find it disappointing and my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) finds it disappointing. However, we are democrats and we have to live with the decisions of the British people.

Peter Bone: Look, there are not very many people here. People have gone home and nobody is really listening. Why does the Minister not give his own personal view rather than the coalition view on whether the United Kingdom Parliamentary Sovereignty Bill would be a good thing?

Mark Harper: As my hon. Friend knows, I am here to set out clearly what the Government’s view is. I would never say, just because there may not be many Members present in the Chamber, that words spoken in this House are not heard far and wide. We should be very careful about what we say and should weigh our words carefully, particularly when speaking in a Chamber of a sovereign Parliament.
	I hesitate to say this because I am sure that it will provoke my hon. Friend the Member for Stone, but I think it is worth saying that the Minister for Europe dealt with the issue of sovereignty in detail in relation to clause 18 of the European Union Bill in this House and in the European Scrutiny Committee. He said that the Government’s view was that an amendment that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone tabled, which was similar to what is in this Bill, would have invited exactly the sort of speculative consideration by judges that my hon. Friend feared. It is the Government’s view that the approach in this Bill would make things worse rather than better.

William Cash: The problem for this Minister and the Minister for Europe is that the Bill is not in law and we are already being affected by the assertions of certain members of the Supreme Court that the sovereignty of Parliament is not absolute. If it were not for that, there would not be a problem. This is a recent development. It is precisely because of the Court’s assertions of judicial supremacy that we are required to retaliate and to make our position clear through a simple declaration such as that in clause 1, just to make it absolutely certain.

Mark Harper: The flaw in that argument is that to put into an Act of Parliament the language in clause 1 would invite exactly the problem that my hon. Friend is concerned about. Because it would be in a statute that judges would have to interpret, it would invite them to start defining “sovereignty” and interpreting what Parliament meant by the words in the Bill. I do not think that is very helpful.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Will the Minister give way?

Mark Harper: I will give way once more on this point, then I will make some progress.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, because this point is tremendously important and may, if he is correct, point to a fatal flaw in the Bill.
	I hope that he will deal with it carefully and precisely. I do not understand the idea that things that are in statute are justiciable but things that are not in statute are not. It seems to me that the judges can interpret the law of the land in the round, not just statutes. Will he focus on that point?

Mark Harper: The reason that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone gave for having the Bill and for reaffirming the sovereignty of Parliament was the risk that judges might erode the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty by setting out some new, autonomous legal order in which EU law had authority in the UK regardless of whether Parliament continued to give it that authority. We had that debate on the European Union Bill, and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe made it quite clear that so far our judges have done nothing of the sort. In fact, they have had arguments put before them inviting them to take that stance and have specifically rejected them. That was why, in that Bill, which my hon. Friend and a number of other Members have talked about, we specifically set out that EU law had effect in this country only because it was given that effect by Acts passed by this Parliament. We did not think it was helpful—quite the reverse—to have a general sovereignty clause, which is what this Bill would introduce.
	It is worth discussing one or two wider issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West was right when he drew attention to the fact that under clause 3(b), the Bill covers not just the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights but any rule of international law at all. It provides that no Minister of the Crown is to
	“make or implement any legal instrument which…is inconsistent with this Act”,
	in other words which affects the sovereignty of this Parliament. That seems a very wide term, including both domestic legal instruments and instruments that are binding in international law.
	The Bill also appears to extend to any instrument, including any treaty, that the UK will make or implement, or has ever made or implemented. It appears that it would act with retrospective effect. It seems to me that that is quite deliberate given the words in clause 3 stating that it
	“shall have effect and shall be construed as having effect and deemed at all times to have had effect”.
	I shall come back to that in a moment.
	I do not believe the Bill takes any notice of the changes that were made to the rules for ratifying treaties that were introduced in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, which provides a number of tests and procedures for ratification that improve parliamentary involvement in the process. For example, when a Minister signs a treaty that does not come into force upon signature and to which domestic procedures concerning EU law do not apply, it may not be ratified unless it is laid before Parliament for a period of 21 days and neither House of Parliament passes a resolution objecting to it. If the House passes such a resolution, a Minister must lay a further explanation before the House, which may vote again within a further 21 days.
	Only in exceptional circumstances may a treaty be ratified without the agreement of this House, and a Minister cannot override a decision of the House that it
	should not be ratified. If the Bill became law, what would happen if Parliament did not object to the ratification of a treaty but it was subsequently concluded that it was inconsistent with the Bill? What effect would that have on the sovereignty of Parliament?
	I argue that the Bill is rather dangerous because of the effect that it would have on how we conduct international relations. It would make it impossible for us to participate in a number of organisations—for example, we belong to the United Nations and have signed a range of treaties connected with it. I listened closely to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said this morning about the Security Council resolution. He pointed out the wide authorisation that it gives us and other members of the international community to act but he also explained that it places clear limits on what we can do. If the Bill were in force, it would not allow us to enter into agreements that limit what Parliament can do unless we held a referendum. We could not sign up to any international treaty with which we had engaged that somehow constrained our behaviour, as most do, unless we held a referendum.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West highlighted the Bill that we discussed earlier, which encountered no opposition, on the wreck removal convention. If we accepted the measure that we are discussing, we would pass primary legislation to hold a referendum on whether the British people should support the wreck removal convention. That would not be welcome.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My hon. Friend may have found a fatal flaw in the Bill, and I therefore ask him to consider it further. However, an EU rule has effect in this country above UK legislation, subject to the 1972 Act. That is not the case with agreements made in the United Nations or under other treaty conventions, which Her Majesty’s Government can abrogate at their own will.

Mark Harper: My point, which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe made when we debated the European Union Bill, is that EU law has primacy in this country only because Parliament has passed legislation to say so. The Government will not do it, but it is open to Parliament to change or repeal the Act so that EU law does not have primacy. It is possible, although we are not going to do it. That is the flaw in the argument.
	Clause 4 is another good reason for objecting to the Bill because it purports to bind future Parliaments. It states that a Bill passed in this Parliament cannot be amended without the consent of the people in a referendum. An important aspect of parliamentary sovereignty is that Parliament may enact or repeal any legislation it pleases, and it cannot bind its successors. Clause 4 undermines that. It also states:
	“No Bill shall be presented to Her Majesty the Queen for her Royal Assent which contravenes this Act”,
	but is not clear who would determine whether a Bill contravenes “this Act”. It would clearly have to be the courts, which would then be engaged in assessing whether Parliament had properly passed Bills and whether Bills should have received Royal Assent before a referendum had taken place. That invites courts to have much more power.

Peter Bone: The Parliamentary Secretary seems to be making specific points, which are more relevant to Committee. This is a Second Reading debate about the principle and we should not be discussing the detail. He should do that in Committee with us.

Mark Harper: I disagree. A disappointing aspect of the debate—I was disappointed even if no one else was—is that, in their comprehensive speeches, my hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch and for Stone spent much time on some issues, but little time on the actual Bill. I thought it was important to draw the House’s attention to the consequences of passing the measure and why the Government will oppose it if it is pressed to a Division.
	The debate was helpful but the Government have concluded that, rather than strengthening and upholding parliamentary sovereignty, the Bill would undermine it for the reasons that I and others have set out. I therefore urge my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch to withdraw it. If he does not and he tests the House’s opinion, I urge hon. Members to oppose it.

Christopher Chope: I do not intend to withdraw the Bill—it is important to put it to the test. Constituents up and down the country will want to see whether their Conservative representatives are doing their best to try to implement the manifesto commitments on which we were elected at the general election, or whether we are prepared to allow those commitments to fall to one side because we are in a coalition. I understood that the Government were trying their hardest to implement the commitments, but from what the Minister has said, I remain to be convinced.
	I am grateful to all those who have participated in the debate and those who have supported the Bill. I am particularly indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) for his great knowledge on the matter; much of the Bill’s drafting is owed to his work in the past. He mentioned Jeffrey Goldsworthy, who has written a document on parliamentary sovereignty—I say document, but it was published as part of the “Cambridge Studies in Constitutional Law”.

Chris Bryant: He’s written two!

Christopher Chope: He has written more than one document. I find it odd that the Minister asserts that everything that Jeffrey Goldsworthy says on the important subject of parliamentary sovereignty is wrong, and that the Minister is right—he has many attributes, but I am not sure that he is a constitutional law expert. I would prefer to go along with Jeffrey Goldsworthy’s expertise in the absence of any other compelling legal arguments.
	I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) for raising some interesting points, not least when he intervened when the Minister objected to clause 1. The Minister seems to be under the illusion that the courts in this country can only interpret legislation, rather than apply common law principles. My hon. Friend bowled the Minister middle stump on that.
	I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) for her support. She has done the House and the people a great service in tabling a host of
	probing and effective written questions that have exposed the Government’s policy for what it is—the Government are far too relaxed about the further erosion of our sovereignty.
	I commend the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) on the brevity of his speech. There is a lot to be said for Opposition Front Benchers making similarly short speeches when they do not have any support on their own side of the House at all, as is the situation today.
	The idea that the UN resolution passed last night is inconsistent with the Bill is far fetched. May I suggest a better analogy? When this country went to a war in Iraq that, arguably, was illegal under international law, we were not prosecuted by some international criminal court. However, if we went into something that was at odds with the decisions of the European Court of Justice, we would be prosecuted and taken before that Court on the continent. That is the difference.
	The Minister suggests that various details of the Bill could be made clearer. One way to do so would be to ensure that clause 2 refers to clause 1. However, the essence of the Bill is in clause 1, which stands on its own, reaffirming the sovereignty of this Parliament.

William Cash: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is highly significant that the Government have rewritten—I am glad to say—the explanatory notes to make it quite clear that the supremacy of the United Kingdom Parliament is understood in those terms by the Government?

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend made a good point on that, to which the Minister did not really respond.
	I tried earlier in the debate to give examples of where our sovereignty is under continued threat of erosion, not least of which was how we are left powerless when international courts make rulings against us. We are told that we cannot, as a sovereign Parliament, correct those rulings and redress the balance in a way that our constituents wish us to do. I am disappointed that my hon. Friend the Minister did not respond to any of those issues, so the best thing to do would be to press the Bill to a Division.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 6, Noes 42.

Question accordingly negatived.

Local Government Ombudsman (Amendment) Bill

Second Reading

Christopher Chope: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	This important Bill would extend the powers of the local government ombudsman to provide redress against local authorities that unreasonably ban events on the grounds of health and safety. The inspiration for the Bill comes from none other than Lord Young, whose commendable report to the Government on these issues last autumn resulted in a number of Government commitments. The Prime Minister wrote a foreword to the report stating that the Government agreed with all its recommendations and were keen to see them implemented. One of the recommendations that strikes a chord with people up and down the country—and certainly with hard-working voluntary organisations and charities—relates to local authority interference in charitable and other public activities based on arguments about health and safety.
	As a suitable curtain-raiser for my Bill, and with wonderful timing, the edition of the New Milton Advertiser and Lymington Times published on Saturday 12 March carried the headline “‘Crazy’ safety rules ban running in pancake races”. The article went on to explain:
	“‘Ludicrous’ health and safety rules have been panned for stopping competitors running along Beaulieu High Street in the traditional village pancake races. The annual event was flipped upside down as children and adults—including firefighters—were forbidden from going faster than walking pace on Tuesday afternoon. They were permitted to toss their pancakes.”
	That was one thing that the health and safety people did not interfere with. The report went on:
	“One eager youngster was even disqualified for infringing the ‘over-zealous’ rules by breaking into a run to cross the finishing line first. The road was closed to traffic and although the running ban was imposed to protect children, it was extended to adult races for the sake of ‘consistency’”.
	Needless to say, my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), who was not in Lymington at the time, made some very robust comments that were communicated to the local paper. Who would stand up and justify such a ludicrous state of affairs?

Tom Brake: rose —

Christopher Chope: Perhaps my hon. Friend is going to do just that.

Tom Brake: I am not going to do that, but I am going to ask my hon. Friend whether he has checked the veracity of that report. He will recall that a story went round the world about a head teacher who had banned children from taking part in conker competitions unless they were wearing goggles. It transpired that that had actually been a joke by the head teacher, and that it had turned into a “true story”, even though it was nothing of the sort.

Christopher Chope: I am sure that this story is correct. The reports in the New Milton Advertiser and Lymington Times have a reputation locally for always being very
	accurate. Its editor, Charles Curry MBE, is over 90. I think he is one of the oldest newspaper editors in the country and I know he is conscientious in ensuring that everything that appears in the paper is fully in accordance with the truth.

Peter Bottomley: May I say how sorry I am that my hon. Friend did not move his Training Wage Bill? I would have voted for it, as I did for his sovereignty Bill, even though that needed some improvement. His second Bill did not need any improvement at all; I would have voted for it wholeheartedly.
	On the present Bill, my hon. Friend has usefully drawn our attention to questions that need to be raised about local councils. We know that the Health and Safety Executive has tried to dispel the myths that have developed, and I pay tribute to the organisation. The conker incident was one it dealt with. As for local councils, however, my hon. Friend might want to turn his attention to the chilling effect of the questions that are raised. Too often, people ask whether there is a question that needs to be answered, but because they do not get an answer, they blame the local authority, which might not have taken any action and might not have been consulted. I hope that, whatever happens to the Bill, any local authority people reading our debate will agree to provide easy access to information and will try to let things happen rather than block them—unless there is an overwhelming reason why the organisers of an event need to be hindered.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention and for his indication of support for the Bill I did not move. I did not move it because the Government indicated that they would not support it, whereas they have expressed—informally, at any rate—some support for this Bill. It is important for Bills to make progress as well as be subject to debate, so I thought it would be better to move straight on to my Local Government Ombudsman (Amendment) Bill. I am sure that the issues raised in the Training Wage Bill can be debated on another occasion, as they are fundamental to our current record level of youth unemployment.

Peter Bottomley: May I, through my hon. Friend, invite every employer—public, private or voluntary—to ask how many young people they employ and why the numbers are so few? If the numbers are few because the cost is too great and the effect of employing them not great enough, we can raise their effectiveness, lower the cost or both.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The message from it is that we need to do more preparation to ensure that the next time my Training Wage Bill or similar provision is brought forward, the Government have to face the pressure from employers and from youth organisations, which should help to see it carried through.
	As far as local authority issues are concerned, I share my hon. Friend’s point that we must not tar all local authorities with the same brush. Indeed, the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health showed its sense of humour and commitment to the game of conkers by
	sponsoring the conker championships after the incident mentioned earlier. It wanted to shrug off the spoilsport image and dispel the myth that it makes children wear protective goggles for a playground game. It also entered a team in the world conker championships held in Ashton, Northamptonshire back in 2008.

Peter Bottomley: Is it possible that that team used plastic protective gloves when dipping conkers in vinegar to harden the outside in order to get a better chance of winning?

Christopher Chope: I do not have that sort of information. Since this is all mythical, I am sure that could not have happened in any case, any more than people would have put their conkers in the oven without using protective oven gloves. Obviously, my hon. Friend has great experience in dealing with conkers. One of the most dangerous aspects is using the skewer to make a hole through the centre of the conker, as people need to make sure that they do not puncture themselves at the same time. This all goes down to experience, and why should we not allow people to gain experience in the normal way in the hurly-burly of everyday life and have a bit of fun at the same time? Why are we creating a health and safety culture in which people over-react or fail to act responsibly?

Henry Smith: I am distressed to hear about the Shrove Tuesday fun deniers in Hampshire. When we are putting through a Localism Bill, it might initially sound counter-intuitive and centralising to give more powers to the local government ombudsman, but we must remember that localism devolves powers to, and through, individual citizens and communities. What we are discussing is a great example of protecting the individual celebrations that enrich the lives of many of our communities.

Christopher Chope: I share my hon. Friend’s misgivings. It is extraordinary that a national Parliament should have to intervene, and that we cannot have common sense applied at the local level, but if that is how it is, that is how it must be. In his report, Lord Young hoped that it would not be necessary to introduce too much legislation to implement his recommendation, but said that legislation would have to be introduced if there was no other way of ensuring a sense of perspective and proportionality.
	I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Local Government will respond to the debate, and I am grateful to him for his informal communications with me over the last couple of days about the Bill. The Bill was drafted as an attempt to implement Lord Young’s recommendation. Clause 2 states:
	“Where a local authority bans or imposes restrictions on any event on the grounds of health and safety, the local authority must provide the event organiser with written notification of the decision on the day on which the decision is taken…The written notification must include…the details of the ban or the restriction, and…reasons why the ban or the restriction has been imposed…On receipt of a written notification an event organiser may ask the local authority to review the decision and the local authority must conduct such a review within two weeks of the request being received and issue written notification of its further decision to the event organiser.”
	If the local authority must justify its decision in the first place, and give reasons for it, it will probably be a lot more cautious about seeking to ban such events. An
	individual officer could not use his discretion or apply his prejudice to ban such events, as he would be brought to the attention of the chief executive and councillors of that local authority and have to provide justification. If the matter had not been dealt with satisfactorily within a fortnight, it could ultimately be referred to the local government ombudsman. The Bill would not impose an enormous extra burden on the local government ombudsman, but, in effect, would use his office as a long-stop to ensure that sanity prevailed in relation to health and safety issues.
	The Beaulieu pancake race is only the most recent example. The examples that hit the headlines are inevitably the tip of the iceberg, as many other organisations are inhibited from even embarking on such activities because of fear of health and safety problems. I have various press cuttings, one of which, from Tameside, states:
	“Town hall chiefs have denied being killjoys after they banned sparklers from Bonfire Night celebrations. Families going to the Richmond Street fair and firework display in Ashton have been told the children’s favourite is prohibited”,
	because of
	“health and safety considerations…A sparkler can reach temperatures of 1,000 degrees centigrade.”
	I am surprised that we still allow sparklers even to be sold in the shops and that so many Members of the House have managed to get this far in life without being burned by a sparkler or having our children burned by sparklers.
	There are many examples, including one in my constituency in Ferndown, where the erection of Christmas lights was banned not on the grounds of religion, fortunately, but on the grounds of health and safety. In another cutting, the BBC reported on 1 December that a west Wales town in Cardigan was told that it must go without Christmas lights in the main street because of health and safety concerns. Then, there is an example from the Virtual Festivals website, which reported that at a Devon rock festival last July a band was told that it would have to be without one of its props for an upcoming performance, because the use of a UFO—a fake spaceship—was banned on health and safety grounds,
	“which deemed the elevated object a hazard to those in attendance.”
	Sometimes, councils or organisers get around such bans by being imaginative. When a rugby club was told that it could not have a big bonfire on bonfire night, it showed its initiative by having a virtual bonfire. The club erected large screens so that people could see a picture of a big fire, and it had sound effects, giving people the impression that the fire was burning strongly. They had quite a lot of liquor to go with it, and I think that it was a very successful event. So it is not all bad news, but, because of the current ludicrous regime, people have had to use their initiative to try to get around such health and safety bans.
	Other examples include sack races being banned because the children might fall over and hurt themselves and donkey derbies being banned because the children might hurt themselves. In May 2008, in the donkey derby at Llandudno in Wales, children were replaced as riders by inflatable animals because of health and safety laws, and there is the well-reported story of children not being allowed to wear swimming goggles in the pool on the basis that the goggles might snap and damage their faces. And so it goes on.
	We have a killjoy atmosphere and a defensive approach to health and safety, and that is linked—this is obviously not part of my Bill, but part of the background to it—to Lord David Young’s concerns about the creation of an atmosphere in which people feel that they must not take risks because, if they do, they might open themselves up to significant compensation claims. Another of his recommendations is to try to deal with the so-called compensation culture, which I think lies behind many of these crazy examples.
	In almost complete contrast with the first Bill today, which deals with reaffirming the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament, this is very much a niche Bill designed to make our country a happier and more joyous place, to encourage more local participation and voluntary activity and to increase the range of activities in which children and adults can participate voluntarily, so that, when the history books come to be written, people do not find that all those traditional activities, which are held in villages and towns throughout the country each year, have been reduced to the lowest common denominator and can be exercised only virtually rather than in reality.
	I propose that the Bill be read a Second time, and in so doing I thank the Minister for his indication that the Government are quite supportive of it. If it were ever to go into Committee, it would be some sort of record for myself, because, although I have spoken on numerous Bills in the Chamber on a Friday, I have yet to get a Bill into Committee, so I live in hope that this might be the one that breaks the mould.

Barbara Keeley: I have a few points to make and questions to ask. The Minister may be able to respond to some of them.
	One question is whether measures such as this are “localist” or “centralist”. While we have been dealing with the Localism Bill, what I have considered to be sensible amendments and suggestions have been rejected by Ministers on the grounds that they would impose burdens and extra costs on local authorities. We must be careful not to do that in this Bill. Has the Bill a centralist aspect, and should that be avoided? Perhaps the Minister will tell me what he thinks.
	Another question is whether the proposed measures could be contained in guidance rather than a Bill which, potentially, imposes burdens on local authorities. Given that the Localism Bill confers 142 order-making powers on the Secretary of State, it would be surprising if there were not some way of incorporating this Bill’s provisions in them.
	Clause 2(1) requires a local authority to
	“provide the event organiser with written notification of the decision”
	to ban or impose restrictions on an event
	“on the day on which the decision is taken.”
	I find that rather peculiar. In my experience of local government, we hold our meetings in the evenings. It does not strike me as feasible to require a local authority to give written notification on the day on which a decision is taken. It is just a question of wording. I think that some reasonably short time should be specified instead.

Christopher Chope: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Barbara Keeley: It might be more helpful if the hon. Gentleman allowed me to run through my questions first.
	Clause 1(3) uses the word “unreasonably” in relation to decisions to ban on the grounds of health and safety. It also appears in the Bill’s long title. The question of what is reasonable and what is unreasonable is a tricky one, although I think we all recognise that, over time, some silly decisions have been taken. The hon. Gentleman cited some of them. Anyone whose event is banned for any reason will feel that the decision was unreasonable, and I fear that burdens would be imposed on local authorities if every decision were challenged.
	Clause 2(3) requires a review to be completed
	“within two weeks of the request being received”.
	Again, I am concerned about the possibly unnecessary extra burdens that that might impose on local authorities. A good event organiser would tend to seek permission for an event a long time before organising it. In my locality, such events as triathlons and marathons are often organised a year in advance.
	We hear many stories about decisions that are taken for health and safety reasons, but I think it important for us not to denigrate health and safety entirely. At the time of the Young report on health and safety, a TUC health and safety officer, Hugh Robertson, said:
	“For sure, silly things are sometimes done in the name of health and safety and the behaviour of some claims firms can be reprehensible. But the real health and safety scandal in the UK is the 20,000 people who die each year due to injury or diseases linked to their work. A serious review of health and safety would put far more emphasis on dealing with this avoidable death and suffering.”
	I think it important for us to bear that in mind.
	We have heard about firework displays being abandoned and pancake-tossing races being restricted, but let me make a serious point. On Sunday morning I was at a schools rugby tournament watching my nephew playing for Glasgow Academicals. He and his team played very well, but one of the boys suffered a broken leg in the game. That schools tournament was being held at a ground with proper facilities, and an ambulance safely transported the injured young player. He was able to rejoin his team with his leg in plaster, and be a hero on the way home. We must bear in mind, however, that there can be terrible injuries in rugby matches. This match was being played by 11-year-olds, and they were engaging in contested scrums. If a young person were to suffer a serious neck injury, for example, we would not want them to be a long way from medical help with no suitable transport or paramedics to deal with it. In some sporting events, such as fast contact sports or those involving water, there can be terrible injuries, and there must be a sensible consideration of health and safety to ensure that any such injuries are dealt with properly.
	I ask the Minister and the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) to address the concerns I have raised and the points I made about localism and centralism.

Grant Shapps: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) for having brought this important issue before the House. As he points out, it is
	a great concern of the coalition Government. We think that the balance between enabling events to take place and health and safety considerations may well have got out of kilter over the years. Reference has been made to the 2010 report by our friend Lord Young “Common Sense, Common Safety”, the purpose of which was to look across Whitehall to identify those health and safety laws that had got out of kilter with the reality on the ground.
	I know that my hon. Friend is keen to break with his track record of not necessarily getting his private Member’s business through this House, and I shall turn to that topic later. First, however, I want to address some of the key issues he raises, in particular with reference to local authorities, which are the main focus of his Bill.
	The Government believe that local authorities have become overly cautious in respect of health and safety—not on all occasions, and not necessarily right across the country, but certainly in individual instances. It is not difficult to find stories that demonstrate that. Indeed, my hon. Friend highlighted many such stories during the debate. Examples include banning sparklers because they are supposedly so dangerous that no child should be allowed, even under supervision, to go anywhere near one, and banning conker fighting. Most people will recall conker fights from their school days.

Christopher Leslie: indicated dissent.

Grant Shapps: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. He obviously was not a conker-fighting champion, and it is clear that he carries the burden of that to this day. He should know, however, that conker fighting is a long-established sport in many schools. The notion that we can remove all danger—all possible injury or risk—from every circumstance is a concept whose time has past.

Mark Tami: Does the Minister agree that health and safety is sometimes used as an excuse? For instance, schools banning conker fighting is probably more about staff not wanting to clear up all the broken conkers that litter the playground—I remember that from when I was child—than any particular health and safety issue. We must always be careful when conker fighting, however: a friend of mine had a stone that looked remarkably like a conker, and he won many fights using it.

Grant Shapps: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing out that conker fighting can sometimes be done in the wrong way. I well remember the many tricks, some of which have been mentioned in the debate, including baking the conker in advance.

Mark Tami: And using vinegar.

Grant Shapps: Yes, that is a chosen way to try to harden the conker, but I must bring the hon. Gentleman some bad news in that regard: I do not believe that vinegaring conkers does make them sturdy for the purposes of conker fighting.
	To be fair and balanced, I must add that there are genuine reasons why activities—conker fighting or otherwise—can and may be banned. The hon. Member
	for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) rightly pointed out that there are significant health and safety concerns about deaths that happen in the workplace and she cited a figure of 20,000 deaths each year. One death is too many, so health and safety has an important role to play.
	However, this debate is about whether health and safety is used as an excuse to prevent perfectly legitimate activities taking place—my hon. Friend suggests that it is—and whether people are overcompensating for the possibility of danger in almost every activity. I am familiar with the stories we hear each year of local authorities choosing to be overly prescriptive and cautious whenever any festival is celebrated—one thinks of the royal wedding that is coming up next month. A woman was recently in the news as she had been told that she could not put bunting up outside her house because it attached to a lamp post across the way. She was told that even though she had been doing this for decades—suddenly this was deemed to be dangerous. I had heard the stories of the Christmas lights that are not put up. I had not heard about the Devon rock festival and the UFO spaceship prop, but those examples sounded bizarre.
	An issue has arisen through health and safety being used as a backdrop in order to ban things. Lord Young of Graffham published his report in October, rightly pointing out that more needs to be done to rein back the overzealous use of health and safety laws to ban things. This brings us to the nub of my hon. Friend’s argument, which is that the local government ombudsman could be provided with powers, through this amendment to the way in which he operates, so that he could pare back the more extreme health and safety excesses. The Government are sympathetic to that idea, and I have indicated privately to my hon. Friend that we would like this to be done in time.
	However, I now have to inform my hon. Friend that we do not think the Bill goes far enough. Lord Young’s recommendations were clear on this matter. He made a number of recommendations about the compensation culture; the low-hazard workplace; raising standards; insurance; education; health and safety legislation; and local authorities. In particular, he recommended that when local authorities ban or curtail events on health and safety grounds, the official banning the event should write about those reasons and allow them to be presented to the organiser of the proposed event. The hon. Lady rightly pointed out that hearing a decision only on the day may not provide sufficient notice if a meeting takes place in the evening. That well made point demonstrates at least one of the things that needs a little further thought and investigation.
	Lord Young says that his approach would allow citizens to have a route for redress when they want to challenge local officials’ decisions. He said that local authorities should conduct an internal review of all refusals on the grounds of health and safety. In other words, he proposes that we go even further in order to provide redress, saying not only that councils should provide a written statement, which would not put the event back on and which would not make any difference at all, but that there should be some kind of process whereby citizens can see what has happened and why, and have the opportunity therefore to challenge it, perhaps through the local media.
	Lord Young also says that citizens should be able to refer unfair decisions to the ombudsman and have a fast-track process to ensure that decisions can be overturned within two weeks. Again, this all depends very much on timing. The hon. Lady made the important point that some events are set up months, if not years, in advance, so putting in place some kind of fast-track process, perhaps taking no more than a couple of weeks, to examine and potentially overturn a bad decision would be a very good idea. Again, it would need to be incorporated in this legislation.

Mark Tami: The point that I was trying to make earlier was that councils use health and safety as an excuse. If it is not that, they will find some other reason to say that they cannot do it, because they did not want to do it in the first place.

Grant Shapps: That is a wise and well made point. Far too often, that is precisely what happens. As the hon. Gentleman said in his first intervention, there is an attempt to hide behind health and safety legislation in wanting to ban something while in fact having a completely different agenda. It is important that there are some powers of redress that go beyond the local authority merely explaining in writing that it has banned it, because it will trot out the usual reasons for the ban—it thought the event was dangerous for traffic, and so on—but will not give the proper and full redress that is required.

Paul Beresford: I had some slight experience of local government in the past. Does my right hon. Friend agree that he needs to look at the possibility that the local authority will, so to speak, fund it out? In other words, in order to close a road for a function—I will not name any councils, but I know of a few that tend to do this—it will come up with some exorbitant fee as an excuse, and then try to land that fee on the organisers.

Grant Shapps: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Indeed, there are often reports of precisely that, and I have seen it happen. It joins up with what the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) said about how it is possible to hide behind the health and safety legislation in a variety of ways. When a local authority does not want an event to happen—perhaps it feels that it is in competition with something that it is doing—one way of avoiding it is to describe the problem as one of health and safety, but the other way is to price people out of the market. That goes completely against the spirit of localism, which I will talk about in a moment. There is an idea that local communities do not know best and that only a local authority can make these decisions, and they can hide behind excessive sums of money, making it almost impossible for organisers to put on the event. That is completely wrong, and it is something else that we are keen to address that is not yet encapsulated in the terms of the Bill.

Mark Tami: I know from my own experience of a case where the council said that the police had raised objections, for a whole host of reasons. People often then say, “Well, okay, the police have a problem, so we won’t do it.” When one follows it through and contacts the police to find out what is going on, they say they do
	not know anything about it. That goes back to the fundamental point that the council will try to price it out of existence or say that it is somebody else’s fault, whereas the bottom line is that they simply do not want it to happen.

Grant Shapps: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Too often apparently insurmountable blockages are placed in the way of organisers who, rightly, want to get out there and represent their communities. Perhaps they want to have a street party to celebrate the royal wedding or another festival, or just to bring the community together on their estate or in their neighbourhood through a community day, yet they are constantly blocked. At every turn there is a cul-de-sac—a reason why it cannot be done.
	Often those reasons are entirely spurious and trumped up. The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside mentioned the interesting situation in which the police apparently did not even know that they were being used as the excuse, or alibi, and cited as the fundamental blockage. Of course, that sounds very convincing. When a local authority officer tells someone that the police have banned the event, it is very hard to challenge that. It has an air of realism or likelihood about it—it sounds official—and of course that puts off all but the most tenacious citizens. Again, that is wrong.

Christopher Chope: The Minister says, and I am grateful to him for it, that there is much in the Bill that he is content with, and that he wants it to go further. Will he explain how the Government propose to deal with the legislation arising from Lord Young’s recommendations? I have proposed a number of private Members’ Bills on individual items from that list of recommendations. How will the Government proceed with the overall implementation of the recommendations?

Grant Shapps: My hon. Friend should be under no illusion that we are a fundamentally deregulatory coalition Government who are keen to sweep away burdens. We want to allow people to break free, particularly in their own communities, in order to put on street parties or to change their communities through things such as neighbourhood plans. The direct answer is that we will implement the recommendations in a variety of ways, including through the Localism Bill, which has been referred to. The Bill takes forward many of Lord Young’s ideas and concepts, including through neighbourhood plans, which will allow neighbourhoods to come together and describe the kind of place that they want to be. That cannot necessarily be blocked by the town hall. Suddenly, we will find that there is the flexibility to do many more things.

Barbara Keeley: I would not want this discussion to pass without saying something in defence of my local council. Hon. Members are very unfortunate in their experiences of local councils. Salford city council runs a lot of large community events, so it must be very different. It runs proms in the park, Christmas ice skating and many firework displays. We are obviously not as risk averse in my neck of the woods as those other places. I have found that the factor that does get in the way of events such as triathlons and charity
	fundraising runs, which I am very interested in, is clashes with TV football schedules, and I would be grateful if the Minister commented on that. If Manchester United are scheduled to be on TV at 3 pm, one can forget about a fun run. What is a council meant to do when the police say, “You can’t have your run and this football match”?

Grant Shapps: Again, the police and the local authority have a legitimate role in, for example, crowd management and in ensuring that events go off smoothly. The hon. Lady mentioned her authority, so I will take the liberty of mentioning mine. Welwyn Hatfield council generally does a superb job on this sort of thing. It allows fun runs and each year there is a festival called Kaleidoscope, which now attracts upwards of 10,000 people. It started as a small, grass-roots, neighbourhood festival and has grown into something much larger. I pay tribute to the many local authorities that get this right. Of course, they do have to make judgments, along with the police and other authorities, about the safety of each individual event.

Paul Beresford: I hope that the Minister, in putting the legislation together, will consider the other side of the argument. When I was a council leader, we had a file labelled “N.U.T.T.E.R.”. There were vexatious individuals who used to plague the local authority for absolutely everything. The local authority has to be in a position to say no and, if the individual is persistent, to say no firmly once and for all.

Grant Shapps: I think that the whole House is grateful to my hon. Friend for his experience not only as a local authority leader, but of the residents who made up his local authority.
	One reason I feel it is necessary to look further at this Bill, rather than rush into it, is that it raises some interesting points, such as those made by my hon. Friend just now and the shadow Minister. The question is, when is a decision reasonable and when is it not reasonable? Does the local government ombudsman have the position, knowledge or expertise to make such judgments? This is a serious point. The point of having the local government ombudsman is to provide redress for a problem that has happened, just as with the parliamentary ombudsman. Like other ombudsmen, the local government ombudsman does not usually judge whether something is within health and safety rules. To ask the ombudsman to do that would, I fear, be to ask it to create a new structure or back-office function. After all, knowing what is health and safety and what is not is usually the product of experience. It comes from the development of procedures and from an awful lot of work by the Health and Safety Executive, local authorities, safety officers and so on. If the ombudsman were suddenly plucked out to make that judgment, that would go much further than its usual role of redress. For that reason and several others, I do not feel we have our ducks in a row as far as the Bill goes.

Christopher Chope: On that point, I think my right hon. Friend misreads the Bill. I want the ombudsman to adjudicate and to intervene where the process has not been complied with. I rely on the transparency of the
	process to bring to public attention the reasons for banning something, in the hope that there would not be any need for further adjudication.

Grant Shapps: I am grateful to my hon. Friend again. His intervention demonstrates that there is quite a bit more work to be done before we all feel that sufficient procedures are in place and that the ombudsman would not overstep into a role of judgment on health and safety grounds, which I think would be taking things too far.
	In the few minutes remaining, I wish to address some of the other comments that have been made. The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South was interested to discover how we thought the Bill fitted with the idea of localism. I know that she has gained good experience—or at least experience—from the Localism Bill Committee, and that she has examined the matter carefully. We believe that localism can flourish only if we put a framework in place. If we say to people, “Just go and do whatever you want”, but there are no rules, no framework and no guidance—nothing in place at all, not even a skeleton—that is not a route to localism. The natural order would regain control and local authorities and central Government would revert to type.
	We need to put limitations in place, and the Bill is in that spirit and is intended to do exactly that. It is intended to put in place a degree of control, with the possibility that citizens will have power over their local authorities rather than the other way around.

Barbara Keeley: I am fascinated to hear that the Minister thinks we should have frameworks. Perhaps he would like to tell me—it might be slightly out of context, but he has brought us on to this point—why we do not have a national planning policy framework when we do have legislation that will bring in neighbourhood plans. If neighbourhood plans can be linked to the Localism Bill, that will be important, but that Bill has almost reached Report without having a framework in it.

Grant Shapps: I do not want to try your patience by taking us too far off the subject of the local government ombudsman, Mr Deputy Speaker, but the simple answer is that we will have a national planning framework. It will be consulted on by the summer, and it will be put in place as precisely what Members are arguing for this afternoon—a framework within which everyone can operate fairly.
	There is certainly a lot that is good about the Bill that we are discussing today. The intentions behind it are certainly in the right direction, but my concern is that we have not yet gone far enough for it. We have not had the opportunity to work out how the local government ombudsman would make the decisions set out in the Bill, particularly if it had a quasi-adjudicatory role, which I think it almost certainly would.

Mark Tami: Does the Minister agree that when people go to the ombudsman, they perhaps do not realise that, as the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) pointed out, it is about process? It is not about outcomes, it is about whether people have been treated fairly and whether the correct steps have been taken. People who have come to me have often thought that it is more about the outcome than the process.

Grant Shapps: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and he is absolutely right. It is often misunderstood that the ombudsman is there to look at process and not to sit as judge and jury or make up or develop case law. The Bill as currently drafted misses that point, although I take the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch that that is not intentional. We need to do further work to ensure that the ombudsman’s role is appropriate—if, indeed, that is the way to go.
	We want not only to resolve the issue and peel back the layers of health and safety, which all too often stop good community activities taking place, but to go further. We want to ensure that, throughout the country, come next month, there are street parties wherever people want them. The cost has already been mentioned, and we do not want people to pay for, for example, closing the road on the eve of the royal wedding. Some groups might want to hold a celebration on the day itself, and they have to go through the whole process and fill in all the documents again.
	I am sure that many Members have been involved in such events, but for those who have not, they are not insubstantial pieces of work. The documents that must be completed before any public event can go ahead often run to 20 to 40 pages. They ask a range of questions, many of which are way beyond the remit or knowledge of the individuals who fill them in. More often than not, they are nothing to do with the type of event that is put on. Too often, they are not accessible online and people still have physically to go to the town hall to pick up the paperwork. The bureaucracy is sometimes way out of kilter with the size of the event, which can often be small and involve people in only a few dozen houses. Again, we reach the uncomfortable position whereby people are simply prevented from taking part in the big society around them. That should not happen.
	The Government’s view is that local authorities should help. They should not only accept that such events can take place and that people ought to be able to do things without unnecessary intervention from the ’ealth and safety police, but encourage the events. An important part of living in a local community is having the ability to do things, not because the Government have said that people have to do them, or the local authority has decided to stage a fun day, although that is perfectly legitimate, but because local residents—the community—have got together and made the decisions. Nothing could be more powerful in helping a community develop and produce better community relations than people coming together and doing those things themselves. I call it my painting the wall test. If people paint their own wall, they have some pride in the work; if somebody else does the job, it is just another wall. Community events, which bring the entire residential community together, are enormously important.
	We must sweep away the health and safety culture that far too often prevents that. The Government will seriously consider introducing plans. We need a little more time to ensure that some of the loopholes that we have identified in the important debate this afternoon are ironed out. However, I give my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch an undertaking that we will
	endeavour to do that. I would welcome the opportunity to work with him and other hon. Members to ensure that we get it right.
	We believe that implementing Lord Young’s recommendations is an enormously important part of ensuring that health and safety regulations are pared down to the point where they pass the common-sense test: is the risk involved in proportion to the benefit from the activity? That is a simple test, which can easily be applied and accommodated. However, we need to go a little further, and not just write something to the event’s planner to say that it is out of order for whatever reason, but ensure that citizens have a right of redress. They should know why their event was unable to go ahead and how many such events the local authority or those nearby are cancelling. We should consider whether a power ought to be vested somewhere, notwithstanding the complications that we have discussed about the ombudsman and others—
	The debate stood adjourned (Standing Order No. 11(2)).
	Ordered, That the debate be resumed on Friday 13 May.

Business without Debate

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, CRIME AND VICTIMS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Bill read a Second time; to stand committed to a Public Bill Committee (Standing Order No. 63)

CARERS (IDENTIFICATION AND SUPPORT) BILL

Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Secondtime.

Hon. Members: Object.
	Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 10 June.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION (AMENDMENT) BILL

Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Secondtime.

Hon. Members: Object.
	Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 17 June.

MASTER’S DEGREES (MINIMUM STANDARDS) BILL

Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Secondtime.

Hon. Members: Object.
	Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 21 October.

MEDICAL INSURANCE (PENSIONER TAX RELIEF) BILL

Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Secondtime.

Hon. Members: Object.
	Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 1 April.

MINIMUM WAGE (AMENDMENT) BILL

Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Secondtime.

Hon. Members: Object.
	Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 14 October.

PARLIAMENTARY STANDARDS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Secondtime.

Hon. Members: Object.
	Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 1 April.

FINANCIAL SERVICES (SOUTH-EAST LONDON)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Angela Watkinson.)

Nick Raynsford: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise concerns shared widely across south-east London about the threatened closure of a large number of Nationwide branch offices. That is part of an even wider programme of branch office closures by Nationwide that will impact on many other areas, but the scale and nature of the closures in south-east London are particularly extreme and have aroused substantial anger and concern. I am pleased to have the support this afternoon of my constituency neighbours, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) and my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander), whose constituents will also be seriously affected by the closures. I am sure that they will add their comments in so far as time allows.
	Before getting into the details of what is happening, let me make it quite clear at the outset that the debate is not just a knee-jerk reaction to the threatened closure of one or two local branches. Like my right hon. and hon. Friends, I fully understand that any organisation operating on Nationwide’s scale must review from time to time the viability of its branch network in the light of changing demographics and trading patterns. We are not arguing for preserving the full existing network of branches in aspic. Change is inevitable, but what is not inevitable and is particularly shocking about Nationwide’s proposal is the closure of every single branch in inner south-east London while all the outer south-east London branches remain unscathed.
	I realise that we cannot use visual aids in the Chamber, but a quick look at the map would make clear the scale and enormity of Nationwide’s actions, and I ask the Minister and colleagues to try to visualise its proposals. All seven existing branches inside the south circular road in south-east London—Walworth road, Peckham, Lewisham, Catford, Blackheath, Greenwich and Woolwich—are to close. At the same time, all the branches outside the south circular road—Beckenham, Bromley, Petts Wood, Orpington, Sidcup, Eltham and Bexleyheath—are to stay open. That is quite simply a crude and discriminatory exercise in which the leafy suburbs are favoured while inner London is punished. Not only is that socially divisive, but it leaves a huge section of London without access to the branches of the largest surviving mutual building society.
	I estimate that some 670,000 people live in the area affected by the closures—the whole population of the London boroughs of Southwark and Lewisham and two thirds of the population of the London borough of Greenwich. Putting this in perspective, this is more than the entire population of a large city such as Sheffield or Manchester. Suggesting that an organisation calling itself Nationwide should entirely pull out of Manchester or Sheffield would be self-evidently extraordinary, but that is precisely what it is doing in inner south-east London.
	Not surprisingly, this has provoked a great deal of anger and concern. Constituents who have contacted me as well as Nationwide have made their views very clear. Mr Daly from Woolwich writes to say:
	“The suggested alternative Nationwide branches to Woolwich are Eltham and Bexleyheath which are not easy journeys, especially by public transport. The decision in respect of the Woolwich branch I find baffling as it is always busy and I don't see how closure of this branch can be justified”.
	Mr Aldous from Blackheath says:
	“Does the Nationwide as a mutual not have a moral obligation to the inner suburbs, where the presence of mutuals can help economic renaissance? Does the Nationwide, as a mutual, not have an obligation at least to consult its members in a timely and meaningful way before taking such a drastic decision?”
	Mr Kidley of Westcombe Park writes:
	“It rather looks as if someone drew a five mile circle around my house and decided to close all branches inside the circle. I can understand that the Blackheath branch could be replaced by Lewisham and Greenwich for most people, though I will miss the very helpful staff at Blackheath. I really cannot see how it makes sense to close the Greenwich and Lewisham branches, both of which are local transport hubs, easily reached from much of South East London. I can only assume that Nationwide is no longer much interested in South East London business”.
	Mr Reader from Greenwich writes:
	“I find this decision completely unacceptable by a major branch. I could stomach closure of my branch, but to close my next nearest six branches as well defies logic. I would ask that you contact the Nationwide and ask that they reconsider and show more respect for South East London customers, staff and local communities”.
	That is precisely what I did, but when I met Mr Matthew Wyles, the group distribution director of Nationwide, on 1 March, the response was frankly shocking. Nationwide was clearly unwilling to reconsider its decision and showed little or no concern for the interests of its customers. When it suggested that none of the seven inner south-east London branches was economically sustainable, I pointed out that this might reflect on how Nationwide was running its business, as it seemed inconceivable to me that a major financial institution could not make a single branch viable in such a large and diverse area. Mr Wyles responded by saying:
	“I can’t explain it to you because I myself can’t understand the reason”.
	Nationwide’s behaviour is all the more extraordinary when one looks into the history of the various branches. Some were opened relatively recently. Indeed the Nationwide chief executive, Graham Beale, boasted less than four years ago when opening the Woolwich branch:
	“The branch is in a central location and is a prime example of the investment and commitment Nationwide has in its branch network”.
	I expect he regrets these comments now. He probably also regrets the fact that these closures come at a time when Nationwide is running a high-profile advertising campaign, including the lines:
	“With no shareholders our only focus is you. Talk to the mortgage experts. Ask in branch”.
	This is frankly adding insult to injury to the residents of inner south-east London who unless Nationwide reconsiders will be left with no branches to visit.
	By contrast with the recently opened Woolwich branch, the Greenwich branch has a long and distinguished history. Originally it belonged to the Greenwich building society, which when established in 1809—more than 200 years ago—was the first recorded building society in London. In the 1990s, as consolidation occurred throughout the sector, the Greenwich building society
	merged with the Portman building society, which in time was absorbed by Nationwide. That long history of serving the community that I am proud to represent is now being snuffed out without any serious exploration of options to keep at least some of the local branches open.
	What is particularly galling about this sad process is that Nationwide had its origins as the Co-operative building society, and continues to proclaim its commitments to mutuality. Indeed the advertisement to which I have referred uses the strap line, “Proud to be different”. The cynic might say that Nationwide will certainly be different from other banks, if it no longer has any branches in inner south-east London, but that is hardly something to be proud of. It is sadly reminiscent of that unhappy period in the 1970s when mortgage lenders had a tendency to “red line” inner-city communities that they regarded as undesirable and refused home purchase finance in those areas.
	Those practices are now largely confined to the dustbin; indeed American experience has shown that many supposedly impoverished inner-city areas can be profitable locations for financial institutions to work in. The position in the US is helped by the Community Reinvestment Act, which imposes an obligation on banks to demonstrate that they are adequately serving low and middle-income communities. Will the Minister give some attention to whether similar obligations might be considered in the British context, if financial institutions disregard the interests of their inner-city customers?
	I would also appreciate the Minister’s thoughts on how the objectives set out in the coalition agreement to
	“protect consumers, particularly the most vulnerable”
	and
	“to promote more responsible corporate and consumer behaviour”
	might be applied in the context of Nationwide’s actions. Specifically, I draw his attention to the commitment in the agreement to
	“bring forward measures to enhance customer service in the private and public sectors”.
	Unless Nationwide accepts that it is making a serious mistake and agrees to consult its customers further on options to maintain access to some branches in the area, it will stand accused of walking away from the inner city, from its history, and from social and economic responsibility. It will be a sad epitaph to the long, proud history of mutuality in the financial sector.

Heidi Alexander: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) on securing this debate. When I first learned about Nationwide’s proposals to close two branches in my constituency, I admit to giving it the benefit of the doubt. Rather naively, I thought that, like many other companies, it was going through difficult times and needed to reduce its overheads. I assumed wrongly that the closures would be a small part of a national rationalisation of branches and that the building society’s customers in south-east London would be treated no differently from anyone else. How wrong I was.
	My initial generosity of spirit turned to complete disbelief when I discovered, as my right hon. Friend said, that out of a total of 700 branches across the country, there are 13 closures, seven of which are in south-east London. Two of those branches, in Catford and Blackheath, are in my constituency and two others, in Lewisham and Greenwich, are located within easy walking distance of many of those whom I represent. Hundreds if not thousands of my constituents rely on those branches to do their banking. My constituents may not be buying lots of insurance or putting thousands of pounds into individual savings accounts, but they use their local building society branch to do the sorts of things that people all over the UK do—some to access their bank accounts, others to manage their mortgages.
	Why is Nationwide closing a swathe of branches in south-east London? It seems to come down to what are known as transaction patterns. Basically, transaction patterns are not as profitable in south-east London as they are elsewhere. This means that Nationwide, regrettably, sees its customers with a south-east London postcode as something of a drag on its business. Basically, customers who live in south-east London do not make it enough money.
	I am sorry to say that when my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) and I met Nationwide’s group distribution director and suggested to him that Nationwide customers would simply take their business elsewhere, he did not convince me that he cared. In fact, I left the meeting wondering whether Nationwide would be quite glad to see the back of them. When we pressed him further on why so many branches were closing and why Nationwide was not retaining a central branch, say, in Lewisham, he suggested that demand would be so great for that one branch that it would just “topple over”—I think he referred to it as a “vortex effect”. We were left thinking that there are clearly enough customers wanting to use a branch in south-east London, yet Nationwide is still determined to press on with its closures.
	It is tempting for me to rehearse the arguments that have already been made, but I will not because I know that time does not permit. Suffice to say that ours are not the parts of London where people have easy access to the internet at home, or where people want to do everything by telephone. There is a reason why I have 40 people coming into my advice surgery every fortnight. They want to speak to a human being, because it is easier and more convenient. I do not know why their building society will not give them that same opportunity, and I do not know why Nationwide is giving that opportunity to people living in leafier parts of south-east London but not to my constituents.
	I wholeheartedly agree with the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, and I join him in urging the Minister to look carefully at this situation and to consider what, if anything, he can do to encourage Nationwide to reconsider its decision. It seems ironic that the UK’s biggest building society—which does, after all, call itself “Nationwide”—will have a high street presence only in those parts of the country where there are healthy profits to be made. I cannot help but think that it is nationwide except for those people on modest incomes and for those in my corner of south-east London.

Joan Ruddock: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) on securing the debate. With the Minister’s indulgence, I am to be allowed to say a few words on behalf of my constituents. I want to give the last word to Stella, who wrote to me on her own behalf and on behalf of the 140-plus customers of the Lewisham branch of Nationwide who have signed her petition. She says:
	“I am particularly concerned at the proposed closure of the branch in Lewisham High Street where I have been a customer for 33 years. The argument that the Nationwide gave me when I complained was that it was not a profitable branch and that they had to consider the needs of the millions of other members of the society. I don’t know how many of the 265,000 residents of Lewisham are members of the Nationwide but I can guess that several thousand of us have our mortgages and savings with them and there has been no consultation with us. Even more troubling is that the staff who work in the branches did not know that this was being proposed until the day before the letters announcing it arrived on members’ doormats.”
	Stella goes on to talk about the advertisements for the Nationwide that encouraged people to “apply in branch”. She asks:
	“How? When the nearest branches are a couple of bus rides away and I know that some disabled customers whom I met at the branch will find that a very real inconvenience. It does not seem to make business sense to close all the branches in the area as many local people will then close their accounts and transfer to other banks. When I suggested that they could have combined the three Lewisham branches into one larger branch the area manager replied that they could not find premises. They can’t have been looking very far as I was easily able to identify two eminently suitable premises at a short distance from their existing, well-used branch in Lewisham High Street. Previously I have been proud to say that I banked with the Nationwide as it combined efficiency with a strong ethical sense, safeguarding the principles of mutualism, but now it seems to have forgotten its roots and seems to be behaving as badly as the other banks and targeting people in poorer areas with an even poorer service.”
	As my right hon. Friend has said, we have put all these points to the Nationwide, but we could not get a satisfactory answer. I wrote a letter to the chairman, whose reply demonstrated complete contempt for the Nationwide members in our area. The public have long been sickened by the behaviour of the bosses of the major banks in this country, but it is a very sad day indeed when our largest mutual shows the same disregard for its loyal customers.

Mark Hoban: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) on securing a debate on this issue, and on the powerful way in which he raised the concerns of his constituents. The hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) and the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) echoed those concerns about the closure of the branches by the Nationwide building society. I recognise their concerns about the impact of the closures on south-east London. I raised similar concerns when I met Graham Beale, the chief executive of Nationwide, yesterday.
	As I am sure right hon. and hon. Members will know, decisions on the opening and closing of branches and agencies are taken by the management team of each
	bank or building society on a commercial basis, and the Government do not intervene in those decisions. All banking service providers will need to balance customer interests, market competition and other commercial factors when considering their strategy. So, while the closures that we are discussing are a commercial decision for Nationwide, I would like to respond to right hon. and hon. Members’ concerns by setting out the Government’s commitments to improving customers’ experiences of dealing with financial services institutions more widely.
	I also want to tackle the issue of access to financial services, especially among the most vulnerable groups in society. When I looked at the measures of financial exclusion in south-east London, I found that this was clearly a big issue for residents in all three constituencies. I shall set out how the Government are responding to support the financial mutuals and I will end with a few comments about increasing competition in the banking sector.
	The coalition is committed to improving access to basic financial services, especially for those vulnerable to exclusion. The Government believe that banks and building societies should serve the economy and we are committed to improving access to banking and the transparency of financial products to consumers. We are therefore working actively to ensure that all consumers can access an appropriate mix of financial services.
	We should bear in mind that bank or building society branches are not the only channels for accessing financial services; nor are they necessarily favoured by consumers on low incomes. For many people, the barriers will be significantly greater than simply having no local bank or building society branch to visit. Simply saying, as the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich did, that we should introduce a community reinvestment Act, as the US did, is not the solution given the differences in financial services between the UK and the US.
	It is important to acknowledge the real progress that has been made on tackling financial exclusion in recent years. The most recent figures show that since 2002-03 the number of adults living in households without a transactional bank account has decreased from 3.5 million to just over 1.5 million in 2008-09. The unbanked now represent just 3% of the population. Banks have improved the provision of basic bank accounts for those who need them.
	There remain a group of people who are unbanked. A recent review by the Financial Inclusion Taskforce found that the remaining unbanked are generally the poorest and most deprived people, and it recommended a number of minor changes to existing basic bank accounts to make them more accessible and easier for poorer households to use. It also highlighted the scale of the challenge of extending bank accounts to those who currently do not have them. As more people open bank accounts, we see the unbanked becoming concentrated in hard-to-reach, more deprived groups. We must think carefully about how to work closely with those groups to get people to open bank accounts and access the benefits that they bring.
	We should not assume that simply because someone does not have a bank account, they have not previously held one. Six out of 10 unbanked people have previously held a bank account, but no longer hold one because it did not work for them: they might have been charged
	too much or perhaps it did not give them right amount of control over their finances. So we believe it is important to find solutions that go with the grain of how people run their lives. Many unbanked consumers express a preference for managing their finances in cash. They want direct control over their spending and can often feel that having a bank account takes that away from them.
	We see an important role for the Post Office in promoting access to financial services. The Post Office has more branches than all of the retail banks put together, and an important part of the future sustainability of the Post Office will be the continued growth of revenue from financial services. The Government are also ambitious for all UK current accounts to be accessible through the post office network, making post offices the convenient place for people to access their cash.
	The Government are working with banks, building societies, e-money service providers, bill payment organisations, retailers and post offices to pursue new ways to improve the opportunities for low-income households to make the most of their money. We should recognise that the model of banking is changing and that people are increasingly turning to prepayment cards or e-money as a way of controlling their finances or paying bills online. I believe we should encourage the development of safe and convenient new financial services, using those channels.
	Let me now deal with mutuals. They are clearly seen by many people as more accessible to those who cannot, or do not want to, readily access banks. The coalition believes that a strong mutual sector should have the capability greatly to enrich British society. It is in the Government’s interest to do whatever they can to help the mutual sector prosper and grow, and it is in everyone’s interest to achieve that in a sustainable way.
	Over the last few months, I have had the opportunity to start a meaningful dialogue with the mutual sector about its ambitions, what services it can offer and how it can overcome hurdles that have been holding it back. We recognise that one of the strengths of mutuals is that they do not have to pay dividends to their shareholders, but they do have an obligation to their members. They have to strike a balance between meeting their wider obligations to the communities in which they are based—the people they serve—and providing returns to their members through higher interest rates on savings or lower costs of borrowing. It is their ability to compete that ensures that they remain viable in the long term. Such considerations are at the heart of every decision made by building societies.
	Clearly, there is an appetite for change in the way in which financial services operate, and mutuals stand well placed to respond. To achieve that, the Government are implementing a number of legislative reforms to help to create a more equal playing field in financial services, thus promoting diversity of ownership and a better challenge to the banks. The legislative reform order for industrial and provident societies and credit unions will be relaid before Parliament shortly, and will introduce many basic yet far-reaching reforms that will enable credit unions to modernise and grow and fill some of the gap that banks and building societies have chosen
	not to fill or been unable to fill. After the LRO comes into force, we will also take forward the implementation of the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies and Credit Unions Act 2010, which will bring the industrial and provident societies’ name into the 21st century as co-operatives, and modernise the powers available to update the legislation in future.
	We are also keen to ensure that we do as much as possible to reduce the costs faced by mutuals, so that they can spend more of their income on meeting the needs of members. We will lay an order shortly to give mutual societies the option to use electronic communications to engage with their members, rather than sending statutory information by hard copy, enabling them to reduce costs and invest more in their businesses.
	Credit unions in particular have made great progress in recent years in bringing affordable financial services to people who would not otherwise be able to access them. We are providing additional support to such institutions, outside the regulatory and legislative process. Building on the financial inclusion growth fund, the Department for Work and Pensions will continue to support credit unions for four years through a new modernisation and expansion fund worth up to £73 million. The new fund will seek to extend access to basic, appropriate financial services to many more people on lower incomes, through modernising delivery and customer support systems so that credit unions can become financially sustainable. We also see real opportunities for the post office network in building closer links with credit unions. In future, the Government want to see credit unions—in partnership with the post office—providing more services, more efficiently, to more people, and through the Department for Work and Pensions we are looking at the most feasible ways to make that happen.
	On competition, through supporting the development and sustainability of financial mutuals, whether building societies or credit unions, the Government seek to address concerns that there is too little competition in the retail banking sector. Furthermore, the Government have established the Independent Commission on Banking, to make recommendations on both structural and non-structural measures to change the current banking system, and promote stability and competition, to the benefit of both businesses and consumers. That will include looking at the issue of consumer choice and considering measures to reduce market concentration. The commission will publish its interim report next month and a final report in September. The Government look forward to receiving its recommendations and will then decide on the best course of action.
	I thank the right hon. Members for Greenwich and Woolwich and for Lewisham, Deptford, and the hon. Member for Lewisham East, for raising this important issue. I recognise the importance of access to financial services in south-east London. Clearly, more work needs to be done to encourage access and ensure the right provision of services to people in their constituencies. I hope they can see that the Government are committed to ensuring that everyone, not just in their constituencies but across the country, can access financial services so that they can play a full role in society.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.